Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 July	23 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Ayers[edit]

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

According to the obituary in a local paper, Ayres was an Army officer "temporarily assigned to the CIA to train anti-Castro exiles in South Florida" in early 1963. I believe that much to be true. Apparently this tenuous link to the CIA gave him credibility among a) a few of the conspiracy-minded when he published a whodunit of the JFK assassination and b) others (i.e. Shane O'Sullivan) who say that Ayres looked at a photo and confirmed the presence of a conspirator in RFK assassination. For good or bad, there is no significant coverage about his claims in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. The Wikipedia article cites a local paper stating that he set an ascent record of Mt. Whitney, but this is something easily refuted by a quick Google search. Location (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To many of the top Google hit are to self-published media and blogs to establish notability.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 03:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, outside a possible WP:Fringe mention. And Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely not notable under WP:SOLDIER. Has written two books but hardly best-sellers. WP:FRINGE; some material could be added to Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. (I can see the headline of the next edition of The Lone Gunman: "Wikipedia Covers Up RFK Assassination". ) Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Suzuki[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Although they have significant coverage, this is only for one event, thus making it not pass WP:GNG. It does not pass WP:NHOCKEY either. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 23:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nominator. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe a TOOSOON. For now, fails NHOCKEY. South Nashua (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lost in Space. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 13:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Not Lost in Space![edit]

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

Doesn't pass our general notability guidelines or our notability guidelines for books. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 22:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Lost in Space. — Wylie pedia 12:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:35, 30 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) 19:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

US Presidential Election, 2024[edit]

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

We aren't trying to predict the future—one election cycle in advance is ok, but two is not. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 21:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL closed it last time stating to wait for coverage of it to begin. We don't even know what electoral map will look like until 2020 Census happens, and while we don't need to wait until then to recreate, after mid-term elections may be better time to consider. Right now we may be able to find trivial mentions or minor coverage of 2024 election, there won't be significant coverage for a long while. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We generally don't do one-after-next elections. Number 5 7 20:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT per WP:TOOSOON and this article's repeated recreation....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as waaay WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rhadow (talk) 11:21, 29 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 Jimmy Carter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Carter IV[edit]

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

Mostly-procedural nom after a WP:REFUND. As the PROD contended, Mr. Carter entered the public eye briefly after discovering the 47% video, but is otherwise not particularly notable, so this strikes me as a case of WP:BLP1E. Notability is also not inherited so while it's interesting that he's Jimmy Carter's grandson, it's also not relevant to his notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Provided more notability could be established.TH1980 (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a total failure of our guidelines of creating articles on people for one event. Their is nothing notable about the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jimmy Carter, where James is briefly mentioned. Smartyllama (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jimmy Carter, notability conferred by anything I can read or find on the page is very near zero, but because he was the grandson of a president, his name might be a useful search term. Note that WP:NOTINHERITED does permit articles for individuals whose sole claim to notability, provided that coverage of them passes WP:GNG. This covers people like Robert Todd Lincoln Beckwith (whose unremarkable life garnered decades of coverage because he was the last living descendant of Abraham Lincoln), Amy Carter, and Columba Bush. They, unlike Carter IV, have sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As nom I also support redirection. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Some editors have also proposed a merger if the article stays insubstantial, which should be discussed on the talk page Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anatole de Bengy[edit]

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

PROD'd by me, de-PROD'd with no reason given aside from "removing PROD". The subject's main claim to importance is that he was a Jesuit martyr massacred along with 70 others in 1871. The group is clearly notable as a whole, however, I can't find any sources that discuss de Bengy specifically and in-depth as an individual, aside from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The source that's been added to the article is a blog, so it doesn't qualify as WP:RS. It doesn't cite its sources so there is nothing to follow up on from there. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability of the subject seems adequate and, in any case, there are obvious alternatives to deletion which are preferred per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Catholic Encyclopedia is enough to demonstrate independent notability, even if we were to want another source for neutrality. St Anselm (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Martyrs of the Paris Commune, which is currently a redirect to Paris Commune, but should be a substantive one. That target is a general article, where the martyrdoms are not (or hardly) mentioned. Unless considered for canonisation, each martyr is probably individually NN, but collectively the subject is probably one that deserves an article. This one currently has two sources of which Catholic Encyclopedia is certainly RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As nom I'm 100% on board with a merge to an expanded Martyrs of the Paris Commune article. FWIW I'm not disputing that CE is reliable, but that as a single source it doesn't satisfy GNG (at least in my opinion). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would not oppose keeping if this were filled out. In reading the article, I assumed there would be little else about his life. I was thinking we would end off with the martyrs article containing a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Once again, for an article to pass AfD sources only have to exist, they don't have to be in the article. As it turns out, there are lots of nineteenth-century French sources, as a GBooks search shows. Which is why he made it into the CE in the first place - his memoirs were published the year he died, and seem to have been well received. St Anselm (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly passes WP:V, WP:NOR, and with more sources clearly available on google books, would pass WP:NPOV, if it doesn't already. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now. I would prefer a merge into a more substanial article on the Martyrs of the Paris Commune, but until that happens, this article should be kept as having demonstrated notability. If someone creates the new article, this should be able to be speedily merged/redirected. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:47, 27 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) 19:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian David Lloyd[edit]

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

13 year old Youtuber and minor voice over artist. All sources are primary, no in-depth coverage in independent sources, fails WP:GNG and is WP:TOOSOON Theroadislong (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.PRehse (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 20:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, article lacks reliable independent sources to establish notability. TheDeviantPro (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barnea & Co.[edit]

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

Non-notable law firm that fails WP:N by both not having in depth coverage in reliable sources as understood by WP:CORPDEPTH and by being excluded by WP:NOTSPAM as existing to serve the purpose of promoting the law firm with promotional language. Coverage is limited to passing mentions in articles about clients the firm has had, not about the firm itself. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TonyBallioni This is a translation of Japanese version. Wisebar1323 (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very major Israeli lawfirm. Article could use some cleanup of puffery. Lots and lots of coverage in Hebrew, including pieces on the firm itself.Icewhiz (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of reliable sources and evidence that this law firm - with 100 employees - is notable.--Geewhiz (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment its certainly possible that I missed foreign-language sources, but could some be provided for us to analyze? If they do exist, I'm more than happy to withdraw the nomination because I feel very strongly that systemic bias is wrong, and linguistic bias is one part of this. The soures that are currently in the article are about their clients (from what I can tell on Google Translate) or are not RS. I also don't consider having 100+ employees necessarily indicative of notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are approx. 220+ Google-news hits in Hebrew (576 raw count - 22 pages of results) - [1]. Many of these are regarding cases they are involved in, but there are some more in-depth pieces on the firm (mainly when partners leave/join/restructure etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that in the case of a law firm, the clientele does mean something. In this field, I would say having notable clients and handling high profile cases is certainly evidence of a law firm's standing (and hence notability). And I am fairly certain that a law firm with a staff of 100 is not at all run-of-the-mill, at least not in Israel.--Geewhiz (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, from what I can make out from the Google News and translate, I don't see anything that would lead me to think it should be kept if it were a US based firm. Do you have any specific articles that you could reference? Nothing in the article currently seems to meet the GNG for a firm from any country. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per usual with major, sourced U.S. and Brit law firms brought to AFD, can't see why Israel should be different.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Wannamaker[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player. No evidence he meets the GNG, fails WP:HOCKEY and WP:GNG. AaronWikia (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets point 2. from WP:NHOCKEY Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant by playing in NZIHL as well as playing for New Zealand National Team even if it wasn't in the top pool for World Championship, I think between the two things it is enough for him to have a page. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 01:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. The New Zealand League is not considered a professional league of the caliber to satisfy point 2 (see WP:NHOCKEY/LA; "highest level of competition extant" means in the world, not in a country). Also, the consensus has long been established that it has to be in the top level for the World Championship to satisfy point 6 (which NHOCKEY explicitly states). Ravendrop 06:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the league he plays in is not high enough to satisfy the notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC) Delete As per nom. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ Your !vote got duplicated somehow. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beats me how that happened! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:09, 31 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 06:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bagra (caste)[edit]

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

Does not seem to be a notable caste. May be a misspelling of Bagdi. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 19:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of WP:GNG Spiderone 16:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 12:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dhati Pushkarna Brahmin[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable under WP:GNG. I can't find any references in reliable sources to this subcaste. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 19:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence that this subcaste is notable Spiderone 16:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible hoax? L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:25, 31 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 Draftify. Thnidu's comments are persuasive, and do not conflict with the view of the other editors here that this does not currently belong in the article mainspace. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Mahmoud Abd Al-Wahhab[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. reddogsix (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly sourced to Facebook, Youtube and Linked in, completely fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable source. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Move to draft space The author is a novice here and unfamiliar with our requirements. See their request at the Teahouse and my comments to them. I would prefer to engage the author in a discussion and train them to be a functional Wikipedian, rather than delete their first article and quite possibly leave them upset and disappointed; that smacks of biting the newbies. Even if the article is deleted after that, wouldn't you rather have an aspiring new editor in our ranks than a newbie leaving, disappointed and annoyed? --Thnidu (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And salt, this should not be recreated without a WP:DELREV Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Androphobia[edit]

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

Recently recreated article deleted twice before at AfD. CSD declined due to differing content. It is nonetheless still not a notable concept. On one hand it is one of the -phobias that gets a brief mentioned in various lists of [various prefixes] + phobia. On the other hand it's used to mean misandry. Would also be appropriate to simply redirect to list of phobias, where it is already listed (and doesn't need additional detail). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all participants of the previous AfD: @Alison, Pip25, Bakerstmd, and Opabinia regalis: and users involved in the recent CSD and subsequent discussion: @RickinBaltimore, Staszek Lem, and Group29: — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of the problems with phobias is that it's possible to snowclone an absolutely limitless number of words for new phobias, simply by attaching a Latin or Greek prefix to -phobia, to define an irrational fear of absolutely anything that exists. So to make this a notable concept that would warrant an encyclopedia article, what would be needed is not mere dictionary definitions, which is all that's present for referencing here — we would need actual substance to suggest that this term actually has real-world context, such as sources which discuss it in depth as a concept and analyze actual examples of the purported phobia in action. Boilerplate dictionary definitions of what it technically means as a term aren't enough to merit an encyclopedia article by themselves, if we can't show any substance beyond that. Bearcat (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt. For years the article failed to be more than dictionary definition. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found this source, but I don't think that it is a suitable reference. I could not find any papers in Pubmed, nor any description in psychiatry textbooks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siddhanth Lohia[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable chess player; 12 years old is too soon for an article. He has no official FIDE title; the "Arena International Master" title is awarded for online play specifically for lower strength amateurs. I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources so he fails WP:GNG. In addition I believe the creator of the article is also its subject judging by his username so an obvious WP:COI. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a few mentions, but no more than that in reliable sources. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 20:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BIO. Sophia91 (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources in the article are two database entries. They confirm that he is a 12-year-old Indian chess player, ranked #616 in the world in his U-12 age group. None of the other claims in the article have sources, and even if they did they wouldn't make an encyclopedically notable biography. This article is premature. Quale (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The editors favoing keep did not really produce any policy-based arguments for retaining this. Simple play on the BBC, while significant, does not establish notability, and no useful sources were added to the article nor listed here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Point of You[edit]

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

Article doesn't comply to Notability:Music guidance, it contains statement "was selected to participate in the world's first e-novel with music" which is blatant advertisement by band members--SubRE (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the song is notable enough... just some googling and you will find out how the ebook has 800k downloads. You should do some reading before you start deletinf things franticly as if it's your new toy and you should start replying to wikipedians' messages on your talk page. 404's are always a problem this was released 3 years ago this will need more experienced editors with indie rock background in music to be decided, what you are doing is vandalism and it shouldn't be overlooked MusicPatrol (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It actually covers more points on the notability area, it had spins on BBC so it's an indisputable keepMusicPatrol (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The BBC Claim backs it beautifully... The thing is 'Point of You' wasn't on the eBook, it was 'Remnants (of a Former Worry)' instead, apologies, I will fix the mistake, I guess if I was connected to the band like the sock puppeteer accuses me for I would have changed it years ago. It saddens me not seeing moderators doing something about such a behaviour Asouko (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment By the way before you do anything you should at least read the guidelines, you don't just randomly add tags ignoring all the previous work done by editors on the article, and don't notify anyone, also you'd expect to be proficient to edit Wikipedia not writing 'doesn't exists' etc, knowing a bit more about music also would be desirable. There's definitely some personal spite in the whole thing and I have to agree it's sheer vandalism Asouko (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Both users above is authors of article and active promoters of band, possibly members. So I suggest simply to ignore their "votes". The only "argument" they mentioned is "airing on BBC 6 radio" once. Clearly, no one "noted" it and it wasn't played again. So, how do you think, if song once was put on a radio, is it worth separate Wikipedia article?--SubRE (talk) 07:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will refer you to my other comment, I can't be babysitting you seeing where you are frantically editing... 'excellent gas-lighting technique there...You'll probably have to google this meaning... this is just outrageous! I am out! please experienced editors, you should look into this!' Asouko (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, editors should look into this closer.--SubRE (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. --Darth Mike^(talk) 17:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment You are absolutely ignorant... we need indie rock experts here not your personal views... the BBC thing covers it... go read what rotation is... It's not down to your personal opinion on what's notable... Mid range acts have encyclopedic interest... their fans pack clubs and their fans buy records... You don't know anything about music... Google rolling stones sticky fingers, arguably the biggest band and their most known record and let me know how many non primary mentions you will find let alone, king crimson, etc. or a big mid range band... Post punk revival is a niche genre, but let it to the experts to decide you can't just do things because of spite... I can start pasting links I found but unless experts on the matter comment I am done arguing with you, That's all from me as wellMusicPatrol (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't staffed by "experts" in any music genre – even if it were, they would still have to follow the guidelines under WP:NALBUM and WP:NSONG to determine whether an article about an album or a song passes the notability criteria, so yes, you are correct, it's not personal opinion on what's notable, it's complying with Wikipedia guidelines. At the moment there is no evidence that any of the AfD'd articles about Phase pass those criteria. The song "Point of You" was not on "rotation" at BBC 6 Music, it was included on a downloadable mix tape and there is no evidence that Tom Robinson played it more than once on his show. Yes, please do start pasting links from reliable sources (no blogs, or the fact that you can buy the records on iTunes or Amazon or Spotify) that prove the articles' notability, that's exactly what would help to keep them. Richard3120 (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant admins that have experience in editing music articles or have a good background in the music status quo or listening to such music at least, and they are so many out there... they can tell a notable band, etc when they see it... Like knowing when a band is headlining in such and such venue they are notable or when that producer mentions them they are etc. I will take the extra mile and do some pasting, but now that the ' millennial style comment war' ceased I am not that bothered to be honest, I am sure the author and one of the main editors of the article, will paste some links too. MusicPatrol (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But a band's notability for a Wikipedia article isn't defined by an editor being able to "tell a notable band" or "knowing when a band is headlining"... that's an editor's personal opinion, not Wikipedia guidelines for notability as stated in WP:NALBUM or WP:NSONG. Richard3120 (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No you got me wrong again.. It helps when someone knows that NME is not a local free press for instance, or Quietus some aspiring blog and such! MusicPatrol (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so here you can listen Nick Roberts talking about how he played the song's remix, and most likely he played the original song in the past but BBC will let you know only about the last time it's played, and it only makes sense as it's their local show Phase Point of you remix on BBC if some one from London listened and played it while he normally wouldn't... here you will listen to Tom Robinson himself explaining how it works Tom Robinson's lecture on music industry, while normal radio plays are payed for by the artist's or their representatives. Probably the band should fire their publicist, but the references are there. Probably this could be merged in the album's page, I am not sure... MusicPatrol (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Asouko (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly consider redirecting to the album's page where the information should be merged to 86.183.161.31 (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should give a reason for your "keep" assessment. Richard3120 (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it does meet the notability criteria, like it's mentioned above, possibly merge 2.97.229.76 (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How does it meet the notability criteria for WP:NSONG? "Multiple, non-trivial mentions in reliable sources" – nope. The BBC 6 Music page is a mirror of the Wikipedia page for the band so it's not a valid source. The Fresh on the Net and BBC North East references simply list the song as part of a track listing. The other two references are not RS. It hasn't charted, it hasn't won any awards, and it hasn't been covered by notable artists. So I don't see anywhere that it passes the notability criteria. Richard3120 (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it's not about the bio sourced from wikipedia, it's a bout the songs last played on BBC!!

Also on the North East link you can hear the show and the producer talking about the song and it included blah blah... Please look intp the links through if you want to comment on them, else I don't see the point of discussing anything, it's easier to destroy than build, anything... Notability is here, I've read the criteria over and over again, and I don't understand why don't you see it... Asouko (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment deleting should be the last resort... The article was rated as start class, it's not a stub! I pledge to edit and improve it but obviously I will need time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asouko (talk • contribs) 04:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nobody mentioned disruptive editing and tag bombing by the nominator that arrived from nowhere to add tags here and there! We should be trying to fix the problems rather than just adding tags before we do everything else, such behaviour isn't helpful to the Wikipedia community! Asouko (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also to discuss proposals to merge/redirect per WP:NSONG / WP:ATD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Just to sum up... We know how hard it is to prove a negative, please reread all the comments above, the article should stay and I will improve it in time, there is material for it in the internet and magazines. You can't just erase an article just because someone woke up on the wrong side and decided to tagbomb for whatever reason, especially when experienced editors have tweaked the article in the past and never left a tag, notability once established is not going away... there are enough sources to prove notability Asouko (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've already voted once above, you shouldn't vote "keep" again. And you keep saying "there is material for it in the internet and in magazines", but there isn't any proof of that. Inclusion on a mixtape is not notable. Being played on a BBC radio station is not notable, otherwise every song ever played on the BBC would be notable - and as I've already pointed out, that link to the BBC North East programme is no longer available, so nobody can now access it to confirm that song was played. So other sources are required to prove notability. Richard3120 (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment I don't know if I should edit the page above the 'relisted convesrsation message' to add a strikethrough but I am changing the vote to merge, although I think it passes the music notability criteria, some equally and more important singles don't have their own pages, and the merge will only improve the album's page although it is as well currently contested MusicPatrol (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unfortunately, the commonality of the term makes it difficult to research, but after looking through dozens of hits, can't find a single in-depth reference from a reliable, independent source. The current sourcing consists of blogs, mere listings, and a wiki mirror. Fails WP:GNG and doesn't meet WP:NSONG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there appears to be a lack of GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After two reposts, additional sources were found, but there was no general agreement that they were sufficient for notability. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sub Rosa (company)[edit]

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

Blatant promotion and typical press coverage. Light2021 (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment nycjoshblack I have cleaned up this entry to account for accusations of "blatant promotion." The client work section and other extraneous content has been removed. How can the deletion notice be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycjoshblack (talk • contribs) 20:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this content should be excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. Especially surprising is a full listing of this company's podcast episodes, as in:

"In March 2016, Sub Rosa launched a monthly conversation and podcast series called Applied Empathy" Etc.

K.e.coffman (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SPIP and GNG. Even with the client list deleted by nycjoshblack above, the remaining article is still blatent promotionalism. (Also odd that the article creator only performed one edit). I have also submitted a related topic Michael Ventura (entrepreneur) for deletion. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nycjoshblack Additional edits have been made to the page. Sources include a White House Fact Sheet, The New York Times, CBS Sports, Adweek, Inc., Fast Company, and Forbes. As Sub Rosa has worked with The White House and is credited in offical White House correspondence and is the agency of record for Tiger Woods, the evidence of notability is now improved. Language has been modified to be objective and only state facts, so as not to be a brochure. Applied Empathy is still mentioned, because it was written about by AIGA, the oldest association of graphic designers in the United States. However, the individual podcast episodes have been removed. Please reconsider this page for Wikipedia. Thank you, editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycjoshblack (talk • contribs) 17:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for two reasons 1) on the basis of notable client work - mentioned in lede: (White House, Tiger Woods and Pantone), as well as work not mentioned in the article but found in Digiday.com and Media Post profiles (Levis, General Electric, Nike) [[2]] [[3]]; and 2) the NY Times calling them well-respected. [[4]] This does need more work to clean up, and the admitted and possible non-admitted COI will make this a hard sell, but they are notable. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the newly provided sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 17:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:Notability says Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article so knowing who they worked with is simply a repeat of whatever their own company website says. SwisterTwister talk 18:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Pardee, Thomas (2010-07-26). "Small Agency of the Year, 1-10 Employees: Sub Rosa". Advertising Age. Archived from the original on 2017-07-27. Retrieved 2017-07-27.
  The article notes:
  Mr. Ventura founded Sub Rosa, then called Seed, in late 2004 as an exclusively digital agency. At the time that meant building microsites for smaller clients, Mr. Ventura said. Among the agency's first large clients was Mtn Dew; Seed hatched the noted Green Label Art campaign, which would help expand the beverage brand beyond its extreme-sports roots.
  ...
  The shop began offering video and experiential services to more big-brand clients, including Estée Lauder, Diesel and Absolut, and by 2008 had grown to a staff of 30 led by four partners.
  ...
  In late 2008 Seed was also in preliminary acquisition talks, but the price wasn't right. Mr. Ventura eventually bought out his other partners, renamed the shop Sub Rosa and scaled back to fewer than a dozen staff members, which he said is more conducive to the agency's efforts to focus on interaction. (He said this restructuring wasn't reflective of the poor economy, and maintains that it has always been profitable.)
  ...
  Sub Rosa also partnered with General Electric on a series of product installations for one of the energy giant's recent conferences, where it announced the expansion of its "Ecomagination" initiatives. These included a demonstration of a GE wind turbine through the production of an actual 15-foot-long cloud, onto which wind-power statistics were projected.
2. Weissman, Saya (2013-12-17). "Inside the Agency: Sub Rosa". Digiday. Archived from the original on 2017-07-27. Retrieved 2017-07-27.
  The article notes:
  Ten years ago, at the tender age of 23, Michael Ventura started his own digital shop after being laid off from an agency job. It was a time when scrappy, little digital agencies were becoming attractive to some brands that wanted to try stuff that their traditional agencies wouldn’t do.
  Fast forward to today, and Ventura’s agency Sub Rosa isn’t so scrappy anymore: it now employs 45 people, and over the last year, its business grew by 361 percent — and it’s no longer just a digital shop.
3. Creamer, Matthew (2005-10-31). "Seed takes root by delivering influencers". Advertising Age. Archived from the original on 2017-07-27. Retrieved 2017-07-27.
  The article notes:
  This is how Manhattan boutique Seed Communications, in its mere eight months of existence, has grown to manage about 45 accounts. That's about three times the number of staffers it employs. And while many are small assignments for small brands, others aren't.
  ...
  Seed is doing product-placement and urban-influencer work for Reebok, it's talking to Vonage about an online viral project, and it's worked on media relations for video-game maker Ubisoft. This week, Seed-a collection of agency types and the aforementioned hip-hop magazine editors-spreads itself into editorial content with the launch of Inked, a quarterly magazine designed to give the tattooed something significantly more upscale than the old-school biker-oriented publications now on racks.
  Seed is the name of the company before it was renamed to Sub Rosa according to this article from Advertising Age.
4. Richards, Katie (2017-05-10). "This Agency Created a Deck of Cards That Helps Solve Workplace Conflicts and Spark Conversations. Sub Rosa tested its Questions & Empathy game on Eileen Fisher employees". Adweek. Archived from the original on 2017-07-27. Retrieved 2017-07-27.
5. Faw, Larissa (2014-03-21). "Sub Rosa Develops First Brand Campaign For Color Expert Pantone". MediaPost Communications. Archived from the original on 2017-07-27. Retrieved 2017-07-27.
6. Budrick, Callie (2016-10-23). "La Petite Mort: Michael Ventura of Sub Rosa Talks Creative Side Project". Print. Archived from the original on 2017-07-27. Retrieved 2017-07-27.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sub Rosa to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article largely contains facts. It is not overly promotional. Cunard (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unchanged (still "Delete"). The sources presented above are largely industry press, where the level of independence can be presumed to be lower than in general business press. Likewise, the sources in the article are similar, presenting the founders POV, as in ""New Model Agency: Sub Rosa CEO Michael Ventura explains life under the rose", etc. The article does not have a chance of developing beyond a directory-like listing, based on available sources. WP:NCORP specifically discourages such articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the above sources are still fundamentally founded in press releases and primaries, see Ventura founded Sub Rosa, Ventura said, Although the agency's, The shop began offering, Ventura eventually bought, Sub Rosa also partnered with, Michael Ventura started his own digital shop, it now employs 45 people, and....", "....manage about 45 accounts....number of staffers it employs....", "it's talking to Vonage about an online viral project, and it's worked on media relations for video-game maker Ubisoft"; none of that is actually meaningful for notability since it says we need independent coverage of the company's own publishings, therefore their own name stamped on it is certainly not that. I also noticed a heavy similarity between sources 1 and 2 yet they were 3 years apart and a different publisher, that can only mean one thing and it's the company's authorship. Next, our notability and policies make clear we need multiple sources for notability so, even this, as thin as they are wouldn't be significant. While the Keep offers GNG as a basis, that page actually says A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." and I see nothing as to why this company is exempt from it. SwisterTwister talk 18:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 29 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) 19:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Data-driven urban water management[edit]

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

Neologism for "if we had better data we could do a better job". E Eng 17:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article admits it is "novel" and only has one citation from this year. Wait until there is enough for justify a stand-lone article. W Nowicki (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One paper does not an idea make. Rhadow (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A bit of a WP:NEOLOGISM in addition to previous comments. If the term ever gets specific usage, it would at best get fleshed out a little at another water management article, but doubtful ever its own. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:01, 29 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) 19:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket Slam[edit]

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

Not a notable game, fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources to be found in the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I wrote an article regarding Pocket Slam is because I want to raise awareness to the game since it is not noticeable. So I thought it would be a good idea to use Wikipedia to do it having a chance of everyone knowing it thus without I can't find any solution to how I could recommend the fan to the audience . What I mean is that for a internet star (without info) to be famous (for example) you use Wikipedia to engage the audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JetParadox (talk • contribs) 20:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC) --JetParadox (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JetParadox, you might want to read WP:NOTABILITY. The requirement for an article is that its subject actually is notable. You're admitting to using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX. Might as well speedy delete this. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. 0 results from reliable video game source search. Wikiepedia is an encyclopedia. Not a platform for promoting, marketing or raising awareness for a non-notable products. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see — Preceding unsigned comment added by JetParadox (talk • contribs) 19:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G11 as per nom and The1337gamer. Domdeparis (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources available. -- ferret (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet Wikipedia standards for notability. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:09, 27 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) 19:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ellenbrook United FC[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. There are a few mentions, but nothing besides routine coverage. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 17:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Low-level soccer club with no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 03:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with no reliable coverage article certainly fails WP:NORG & the WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:40, 27 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 Fishmans. There is a consensus to delete this, but the usual MO with albums is that they get redirected to the parent band article, so I have done that. Black Kite (talk) 09:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uchu Nippon Setagaya[edit]

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

Since the PROD tag was removed with a poor rational (basically WP:OSE), I brought it here. Besides one review, the album lacks substantial coverage and is sourced by user-generated websites and user reviews. Fails WP:GNG. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found another review of the album and have included a good deal more content in the article to show that discussion of the album has happened by outside sources, and that the album is musically significant (especially as the Fishmans' final album). I would also like to argue that the WP:OSE argument that I invoked in my removal or the PROD tag is valid in this case (after all, the OSE page states that OSE arguments can be "valid or invalid"). The OSE page also states that:

"In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article. In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability, levels of notability"

In light of this, I would like to cite two other independent articles that are directly relevant to the deletion debate of Uchu Nippon Setagaya: King Master George and Neo Yankees' Holiday. These articles are for two of the Fishans' earlier albums, meaning that they are certainly "of the same nature" as the Uchu Nippon Setagaya article. Neither of these two other articles cite any sources other than a Rateyourmusic link. In fact, KMG and NYH are generally thought to be significantly lesser in quality and significance than Uchu Nippon Setagaya, and much less has been written about them. Indeed, I was not able to find a single credible review of either, other than the user reviews found on websites like Rateyourmusic. On the Uchu Nippon Setagaya article, I have found and cited two credible reviews of the album. It is my understanding that two independent sources non-trivially covering a topic is enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, since these other two albums are part of the very same discography as Uchu Nippon Setagaya, I would argue that they represent valid examples for the invocation of the "Other Stuff Exists" argument. Since they both have their own independent articles with far fewer sources (and words) than the Uchu Nippon Setagaya article (and are less significant than Uchu Nippon Setagaya both aesthetically and in terms of the number of independent sources that cover them), I urge you to allow Uchu Nippon Setagaya to stay.

Thank you for your consideration of this case. --FindingEllipsoids (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FindingEllipsoids which "independent" reviews are you talking about? I only see one that may be independent and reliable. The rest are user reviews and blogs, hardly significant coverage. Bringing up their other albums, which you claim are of lesser significance, is not a good argument. In fact, if they are less notable than this unnotable album they probably should be deleted too.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- TheGracefulSlick the problem here is that Fishmans is a very obscure band here in the west, however, they are relatively popular in the Japanese underground scene along with a number of other influential Japanese artists that remain almost entirely unknown in the west, such as The Gerogerigegege, or slightly more well known, Boredoms, the ladder of whom you might be familiar with as a fan of psychedelic rock yourself. There are more than likely credible reviews for the record, but finding any from a real publication in English is quite a grueling task, which I know as a big fan of the band myself. Pzionic (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- TheGracefulSlick I have added more references. In particular, I have done some digging into Japanese sources, of which there were more than I anticipated. The album has definitely been covered by the Japanese media. Particularly credible is Onojima Daigaku's article (http://www.phileweb.com/review/article/201611/30/2320.html). This in conjunction with the David James review seems enough to merit an article. Additionally, "Magic Love," a song from the album, was used as the outro of a popular Japenese music show, Count Down TV. According to criterion #5 of Wikipedia's music recording notability guidelines ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Recordings ), if a recording "was performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show," it is likely considered notable. I have added a new section about popular culture references where I mention the fact that part of the album served as an ending theme of a TV show. This, in conjunction with the independent coverage I listed earlier, surely must be enough for the album to be notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. I just want this article to stay. If there is something specific at this point that is missing that continues to make the article deletable, please let me know so that I can do digging in that area. Although the article is relatively obscure in the West, it is much less so in Japan. Japanese Wikipedia has had a freestanding article on the album since 2011 (https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%AE%87%E5%AE%99_%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC_%E4%B8%96%E7%94%B0%E8%B0%B7). For the love of obscure but important (and still credible) music, what more can/should I do to prove this album worthy of its own article? --FindingEllipsoids (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FindingEllipsoids: here is how your rationale is still flawed: the Japanese source is an interview with a band member which is a primary source, not a secondary one. Using the appearance of "Magic Love" on a TV show is also flawed since we are not talking about the notability of an individual song but rather the album as a whole. The Japanese page on this album is also sparsely sourced so that does not strengthen your argument either.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability outside of a cult following in Japan, and there's not even much beyond a lede, short paragraph and a simple track list in the Japanese version of this article. It's also apparently unsourced. [[5]] Somebody in Japan can look it up there. I also looked the album up on Amazon, where there are no reviews. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

timtempleton No amazon reviews of the album? Now, that is simply untrue.^[1]^[2]Pzionic (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-yes - I didn't think to check the Japanese Amazon. But that suggests the article is fine on the Japanese Wikipedia, just not here. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.amazon.co.jp/%E5%AE%87%E5%AE%99-%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC-%E4%B8%96%E7%94%B0%E8%B0%B7-%E3%83%95%E3%82%A3%E3%83%83%E3%82%B7%E3%83%A5%E3%83%9E%E3%83%B3%E3%82%BA/dp/B00005FJU8/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1500011594&sr=1-1&keywords=uchu+nippon+setagaya
^ https://www.amazon.co.jp/%E5%AE%87%E5%AE%99-%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC-%E4%B8%96%E7%94%B0%E8%B0%B7-%E3%83%95%E3%82%A3%E3%83%83%E3%82%B7%E3%83%A5%E3%83%9E%E3%83%B3%E3%82%BA/dp/B01HOWHN9C/ref=sr_1_3?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1500011594&sr=1-3&keywords=uchu+nippon+setagaya

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 16:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe it passes WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM criterion #2. Snoozer (February 1998, page 21) placed it at number 18 on its list of the "50 Best Albums of the Year". I've also found another review written by 鹿野淳 at Rockin'on (August 1997, page 182). There seems to be more coverage at ROCKIN'ON JAPAN (August 1997) [6]. In 2016, the album peaked at number 121 on the オリコンチャート chart [7]. 153.164.172.173 (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This IP has made no other edits beside casting a vote. Regardless, their rationale is flawed since Snoozer is not a notable listing according to WP:NMUSIC and number 121 on the Orion charts is equivalent to "bubbling under" the Billboard charts.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The source doesn't have to be necessarily notable. As stated at WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM, which is a part of WP:NMUSIC, the source just has to be reliable, not self-published, and independent of the band. At the very least, Snoozer, Rockin'on, and ROCKIN'ON JAPAN meet these conditions. Additionally, appearing on the オリコンチャート chart, which is the one listed on WP:GOODCHART, is equivalent to appearing on the Billboard 200 chart. WP:NALBUM criterion #2 is: "The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart". It doesn't matter whether if the album reached number 1 on the chart or number 200 on the chart. 153.205.43.69 (talk) (I'm the same as 153.164.172.173) 06:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Oricon only goes up to 100 albums. Hence why I said it is the equivalent of "bubbling under" the Billboard charts, making it an point. IP can you log in to your account please? You clearly are not a new user.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the オリコンチャート chart ranks the 300 most popular music albums in Japan, published weekly by Oricon [8]. That's why I stated that appearing at number 121 on the chart is equivalent to appearing on, not "bubbling under", the Bilboard 200 chart. By the way, I feel greatly flattered to have been recognized as "not a new user", but I haven't created an account. 153.205.43.69 (talk) (I'm the same as 153.164.172.173) 07:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage to pass GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 11:48, 31 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. Opinions are divided, and no consensus for a particular action regarding the article has occurred herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's handshakes[edit]

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

WP:!HERE (NOTE: Position subsequently changed to "keep") Sleyece (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm sorry, I meant to check "Watch this page" when I added the nomination to the main page. "minor edit" was an complete accident. I hope it does not stifle debate. Thanks! Sleyece (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Criteria #1, "...fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection". There is no actual rationale given for deletion, only a wikilink to WP:!HERE. "WP:Not here" is neither policy nor guideline, it is an informational page regarding editorial conduct. So on the grounds that it is not a binding policy or guideline, does not apply to article content, and the article creator appears t be a longstanding editor, this AFD is flawed and should be summarily closed. TheValeyard (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheValeyard, the article creator is a longstanding editor with a history of good conduct. I was clearly only referring to the article itself. Sleyece (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale to delete an article cites a behavioral guideline for editors that has nothing to do with article content. I would label your argument "flawed" if there was an actual argument to label. TheValeyard (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge to Donald Trump in popular culture where there's already a whole section about his hair, and/or to Presidency of Donald Trump#Leadership style and philosophy. And if Pres. Trump starts using a joy buzzer then we can include that there too. This standalone article is just too trivial and unencyclopedic. If it's deleted instead of merged, the info can (for example) go into the Wikipedia articles of the people he was shaking hands with. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 22 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) 17:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Presidency of Donald Trump#Leadership style and philosophy. While it should not be dedicated its own article as it isn't an encyclopedic subject, it should be awarded a section there, as it relates to his philosophy and style. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 17:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Are we serious with this? UNDUE, NOTNEWS, and a cornucopia of others. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – While a certain shoe-banging incident by Nikita Khrushchev rose to myth level, Trump's handshakes are mere WP:TRIVIA at this point. In case a merge is preferred by the community, that should be to a new section at Donald Trump in popular culture: topic doesn't qualify for the presidency article. — JFG ^talk 19:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the article has problems, but it's about a series of events with significant coverage and there's no obvious merge target. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm confused. What exactly is the basis for this nomination for deletion? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the main page (Trump), the active section "Handshakes" was created by the article creator (Onceinawhile). There was immediate disagreement, both for and against, as to the ability of the new article to contribute a full article worth of knowledge. Therefore, I created a debate to resolve the issue. Sleyece (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge to Donald Trump in popular culture, and possibly the leadership style section of the Presidency as well. This is irredeemable trivia, not encyclopedic. Yes, I know it has been commented on by sources, and analyzed as a way of asserting dominance, and it deserves a mention or a section at other pages. But we only make ourselves look ridiculous if we maintain an article about it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The very definition of triviality. Cpaaoi (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as Article Creator). In terms of ability to fill up a full article, we could easily do that and more, and might have already done so if this AfD hadn't been initiated within just seven hours of the article's creation.

All major international news outlets have been reporting on and analyzing the phenomenon consistently since the beginning of this year.

For starters, we could write a full "History" section, a full "Analysis" section and a full "Reactions" section.

A selection of some of the more substantial writeups are below:

CNN, 14 July 2017, A second-by-second analysis of the Trump-Macron handshake
National Review, Trump’s Handshakes and the Personalization of Politics
NYT, 14 July 2017, All the President’s Handshakes
WaPo, 16 Feb 2017, What Trump’s handshake might tell us about him
Guardian, 15 Feb 2017, What does Donald Trump’s handshake say about him?
WaPo, 10 Feb 2017, Trump and the art of the super-awkward handshake
Guardian, 18 March 2017, What is it with Trump and handshakes? This is getting awkward
Time, A History of President Trump's Awkward Handshakes
VOA, Is Trump Sending Messages with His Handshakes?
New Statesman, Feb 2017, A brief history of Donald Trump’s handshakes

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep (as Nominator) The preceding statement has given me significantly more confidence that the article could be a full page with a lot of work.~~ Sleyece (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sleyece:The article has become a full page with a lot of work. Please could you have another look, and maybe reevaluate your position? Sagecandor (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Sagecandor: In light of the recent editions to the article, my position on the article has changed to a full "keep". Sleyece (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Sleyece:If you have changed your position on the article to a full "Keep", does that mean you've withdrawn your nomination ? Sagecandor (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Sagecandor: I can't do that in good conscience. This is still a heated debate, and I must wait for a concensus. The best I can do for now is to throw my support in your favor. Good luck. Sleyece (talk) 06:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Sleyece:Perhaps you could maybe add a note to your nomination statement, at the top, noting you've since changed to "Keep" sentiment ? Sagecandor (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. Sleyece (talk) 07:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial subject. Could be merged to Donald Trump in popular culture if merge is preferred. PackMecEng (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- involves world leaders, Supreme Court nominees, FBI directors, etc. Unlike Trump orb, not just part of popular culture, but of politics as well. Meets WP:SIGCOV per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that "trivia articles should be avoided"? Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If and when Trump orb gets deleted, then maybe I'd change my stance. This is perhaps 0.55 in "Trump orbs" :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were right then: "No lasting significance or societal impact." The orb is trivia, whether he's touching it, kissing it, or shaking it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with K.e.coffman--and the funny thing is that the stupid orb, look at the sources--it's all from around the time of the event. That event is over, and so are the discussions/memes about it: recent mentions are just that, mentions. These handshakes are an ongoing thing. Yes, I fully understand how stupid that last sentence was, but with this presidency, that's how it goes. Next up, the boy scout speech. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's trivia and unencyclopedic. Donald Trump in popular culture can cover all that's needed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Expanded the article with sources listed above by Onceinawhile. @Sleyece:Perhaps you might want to revisit this version of the article after my research, and reevaluate your position. Thank you, Sagecandor (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable due to mention in multiple RS, and not "trivia" for the same reason. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: From what I gather from the nomination (which could have been more explicit about the concern, even at the expense of actual words) this article violates one or more WP:NOT criteria (WP:!HERE is an information supplement to WP:NOT). I have to agree: this article is in violation of WP:NOTNEWS/WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Unless a person is primarily (or even particularly) known for his handshakes other than momentarily, his handshakes don't merit a standalone article. This is a WP:POVFORK of Donlad Trump. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finnusertop, you're free to use the reason for nomination as a reasoning for supporting deletion. Please be aware, however, that this user (as Nominator) did slightly amend the original nomination after a strong statement from the Article Creator. Sleyece (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator provided the following justification for deletion: "Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia". This is not a valid justification. The subject received huge coverage in press. This is one of things D.Trump is known for. My very best wishes (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seriously, odd, probably embarrassing, mannerisms of a person deserve an article in an encyclopedia? Have we lost sight of our mission? WP:TRIVIA, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FODDERFORCOMEDIANS, WP:STUPIDHUMANTRICKS, WP:GETAROOM. Sorry, I have yet to create the last three refs. Objective3000 (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We keep pages about presidential dogs. This is something a lot more serious because it tells a lot about the person. Hence the significant RS coverage. This is reference work. If something was covered and became as famous as this subject, it deserves inclusion. It passes our notability guidelines by a wide margin. My very best wishes (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does it pass WP:10YT? Objective3000 (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one knows. Maybe it will. Well, using handshakes to denigrate world leaders is something rather innovative. This is even better than denigrate world leaders by coming late to meetings (that is what Putin does). Yes, maybe that belongs to another page - I have no strong opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no pass/fail for something labeled "...It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines and has no more status than an essay". Argue the merits of the article on actual policy or guidelines, not Wiki-errata. TheValeyard (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable, unencyclopedic and trivial. I'm also somewhat surprised to see keep votes here from people who have been trying to get Trump campaign–Russian meeting deleted/merged. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 02:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Are we just giving up on being an encyclopedia? What is the benefit of this trivial article to readers? WP:NOTNEWS is also appropriate in this case.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable as covered widely in national and international press. If the discussion had been a vote on whether national and international press were right in spending any time or space on the matter, I would have voted "definitely not," but that is not how this works. Mlewan (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as Nominator) This article has been greatly improved since nomination. It has had numerous content additions since initiating debate, and the references have increased by a factor of ten. Most importantly, the article now clearly defines how the subject of the article can and does have relevant foreign policy implications. Sleyece (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absurdly trivial. Everything involving Trump receives intense coverage but we cannot have articles on all things Trump. Based on the ridiculous coverage it generated, we could create an article on the number of scoops of ice cream he receives, but the encyclopedia wouldn't benefit from that and it doesn't benefit from this either. Merge to Donald Trump in popular culture as we did with Donald Trump's hair.LM2000 (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While absurdly trivial (though perhaps not completely trivial, as this is notable as a power play - just as Hafez al-Assad's bladder diplomacy was in the 80s and 90s ([9] [10]) - it is a subject that is given quite some coverage in WP:RS and has risen to the point where opposing world leaders prepare scripted responses for said handshake and coverage. Absurdly trivial things, if they received WP:SIGCOV are notable.Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not. From the same section you link to: topics meeting GNG are "presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article ... 'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." In other words, a ton of topics may meet GNG but are still excluded because they fail WP:NOT. I would think that "absurdly trivial" things are not what general encyclopedias are for. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't anything in WP:NOT that applies to this article. Not even close. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - When I first saw this, my knee-jerk reaction was that it should be deleted. But I was quickly persuaded to reverse my position by the significant number of quality reliable sources where the handshake is the primary topic. It easily passes WP:GNG, it is inoffensive, and so it should remain. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial. The plethora of news analysis only shows how little the news has to report. Yoninah (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of media attention on this and gives insights into Trump's personality. --Penbat (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not a single plausible or encyclopedic reason why this would need a separate article from his existing BLP, any more than his hair (which was also attempted as a standalone article a few months ago, I remind y'all) would. Sources were shown to attempt an argument that his hair passed GNG as a standalone topic too, but that doesn't mean it actually does — it's an aspect of the fact that he's a topic, not a separate topic in its own right independently of him. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I struggle with the fact that nearly every citation is either to opinion or speculation on this page. The National Review article cited on the page offers a glimpse about the trivial nature of the interaction. The article states, "Our political culture seems to have a pathological fixation with the peculiar personalities of our politicians" and "Each handshake, each tap on the shoulder or rub on the back, presents a new opportunity to spend hours poring over the footage, playing it in slow-motion or in reverse, performing biblical hermeneutics on Macron’s body language, the tensions of his torso under his suit, the minute flexing of the muscles in his wrist at the crucial moment. Statecraft becomes the lowbrow drama of Big Brother." The article concludes that there is a "intense fascination" with the personality quirks of the president, but that fascination leads to less focus on real policy issues. If there is an encyclopedic article here, it is about the media's (and the public's) obsession with the personality quirks of the president. --Enos733 (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument pretty much makes the case for inclusion, by noting the media's intense focus on the subject matter of the handshakes. Banal or insipid or silly or whatever, the media has made this into a notable story by the very nature of its coverage, significant coverage which has persisted over time, is found in reliable sources, and is independent of the subject. All the bullet points of the WP:GNG have been hit. TheValeyard (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The quote compares it with Big Brother, a topic on which proudly have 740 separate articles. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every government in every country in the world has or will have a memo on Donald Trump's handshakes. That fact alone makes this an important article. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two people who want the article to remain trying to twist a !vote? Just leave the closing admin to judge the weight if arguments. As to every government having a memo on Trump's handshake...? ^{[citation needed]} – SchroCat (talk) 06:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My belief is the article should be deleted. That said, I believe there is notability for an article like Media coverage of Donald Trump, similar to Media Coverage of the Iraq War or Media coverage of climate change. --Enos733 (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC) --Enos733 (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopaedic trivial rubbish. - SchroCat (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. TheValeyard (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One essay does not get round the fact that this is trivial rubbish. It's a non-subject, and just because lazy-arsed journalists have to fill space and copy what everyone else is doing, does not mean it is a fit subject for an encyclopaedia. If you really want to play policy bingo with alphabetti-spaghetti, UNDUE, NOTNEWS are two, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. - SchroCat (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The article is highly amusing and there is a surprisingly large corpus of reliable sources on the subject, but this article clears falls under WP:PRESENTISM. We do not have articles about unusual quirks of people from the ancient world. Plato is said have worn an earring in one ear as a young man, Alcibiades is said to have spoken with a lisp, and Plutarch even tells us that Alexander the Great's sweat smelled like roses, but we do not have articles about Plato's earring, Alcibiades's lisp, or Alexander the Great's sweat. I see no reason why we should have an article Donald Trump's handshakes either. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The creators of Wikipedia did not create this site for callow nonsense like this to be created. This is like encyclopedia dramatica level.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial per MelanieN. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see !votes here pointing out how much press there is about this, or how many references the article has. But a look at the article shows that the vast majority of the text and the references are about a single handshake event, that between Trump and Macron. By my count there are only five out of the 31 references that predate Macron. The article is now so padded that we have eight different references about Trump's comment that "Macron loves holding my hand," and five to document that Macron said his handshake was "not innocent." Yes, the press went nuts over this, but that doesn't mean we have to dignify it with an article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is only a minor aspect of Trump's life, unrelated to Trump's administration of his policy or his negotiations with other world leaders. Would we have articles on handshakes of other well-known figures, simply because they are in the public eye?Vorbee (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not moved by the number of available sources. It is unfortunate that some media outlets have fallen into the habit of hysterically over-analyzing and critiquing anything and everything related to Trump. We do not need to jump off the deep end just because they have done so. This is the very definition of trivial and unencyclopedic. Lepricavark (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Meme-able but unfortunately not long-term notable. I doubt this is even encyclopedic as well. epicgenius (talk) 02:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As much as I am revolted by the proliferation of trivial articles pertaining to US politics, this is not shite, IMO. It's a pretty big deal, which has invited commentary not just from pundits, and which seems to be something that many are looking for now whenever Trump meets someone. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial per MelanieN, unencyclopedic per Lepricavark, trivial rubbish per SchroCat, & absurdly trivial per LM2000. Grahamboat (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – At first I thought this should be deleted. But there is an overwhelming amount of sources that are about his handshakes. This passes our notability threshold. Folks claiming it is "trivial" aren't addressing the fact that this is widely covered in the media in great detail. MX (✉ • ✎) 13:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MX, I trust you didn't see my comment above, where I discussed precisely the issue that it is "widely covered in great detail", showing that the vast majority of it is about one incident, and that the references in the article are very redundant. --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge to Donald Trump in popular culture and/or to Presidency of Donald Trump#Leadership style and philosophy. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I might could roll with the second one, but not the first. These handshakes take place in reality, not "in" popular culture, nor are we talking about depictions of something. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where does his hair take place? :-) Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because there is significant coverage in RS does not mean we must or should have an article on it. There's significant precedent here, at Michelle Obama's arms and Donald Trump's hair. The ever-expanding list of articles on absolutely trivial aspects and actions of Donald Trump is beyond silly and well into absurdity. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete embarrassing partisan political reporting, for wikipedia, not Trump. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment expanding on my "weak keep" from earlier. WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF (Trump orb) both feel relevant here, but are not acceptable AfD reasons. The more relevant point is that there's no good merge target. Foreign policy of Donald Trump may be the best one, as the Trump-Macron handshakes appear to have gotten the most press coverage, and the rituals of staged events involving heads of state are sometimes notable (Socialist fraternal kiss). Power~enwiki (talk) 05:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial and unencyclopedic. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Most of the delete !votes appear to be vague references to the topic being "unenyclopedic" and "trivial" rather than policy-based arguments. There doesn't seem to be an appropriate article to merge to, either.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is incomprehensible and the hostile !votes are classic arguments to avoid like WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. On the other side, we have solid policies and guidelines like WP:PRESERVE, WP:GNG and WP:CENSOR. And there is plenty of precedent as all the other presidents have whimsical articles such as:

Obama – dog
Bush Jr. – gaffes
Clinton – bedroom controversy
Bush Sr. – vomit

...

Lincoln – beard; patent; sex life; &c.

... all the way back to

Washington – nickname, &c,

Andrew D. (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I (as Nominator) changed positions after work was done. I should have waited longer than seven server hours to nominate a page for deletion. Sleyece (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the subject is pretty silly in my view, it's not nearly as silly as the subjects of many other articles on Wikipedia. Sure, I wish the editors who have contributed to the article would devote their time to more serious politics articles, and sure, it makes Wikipedia seem a bit petty. But I also wish the editors who devote their time to the absurd minutiae of videogames and obscure television characters would do the same thing. It makes me cringe each time one of those articles is brushed up to FA status and featured on the front page, and we're not about to delete those sorts of things. I see no reason to hold the politics space to a higher standard. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find this to actually be an important subject. Its a very visible part of his personality and, ever since he became president, his presidency. There are countless news articles about it. And though it may seem silly at first glance, diving deeper you can find a lot of legitimacy to the existence of this article. I vote a very strong keep. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 00:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also just echoing what Andrew said, there are visible parts of other president's personality and presidency that might seem equally silly at first glance. It makes a lot of sense to have this article. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 00:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable, much more press covering this than the topics of many other "Trump" pages we have, possibly could even be notable for things outside politics (I would bet money there will be an anthro paper on this in a few years...) --Yalens (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge to Donald Trump in popular culture Rhadow (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article of debate has almost no connection to the suggested page. Sleyece (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia. Notable aspects of mannerisms should be in his bio. This form of navel gazing to document every waking moment of Donald Trump really needs to stop. It's a rather small set of editors that predictably generate this paparazzi-like coverage. We don't need in depth coveage of handshakes. Every president has handshake photo-ops and it is not notable enough for an article, even for such larger-than-life personas like Trump. --DHeyward (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Alex Shih ^Talk 16:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon ball chronological time line[edit]

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

This has no references and no context, and appears to be a use of article space to host something that isn't encyclopedic and may be original research or fantasy or fiction. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - this is fancruft, poorly written and apparently incomplete. PK T(alk) 16:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saringkarn Promsupa[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL at this time Atlantic306 (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has yet to play in a fully professional league; has also not been covered in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:34, 28 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) 19:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Kevin Foster[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG/CREATIVE. South Nashua (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear SPA, non-notable and not meeting our relevant policies by some way. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 45th most influential social media influencer of an unknown website. A ludicrous claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Papamayani Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mayestron (artiste)[edit]

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

PROD removed by SPA author with intentions to improve the article, but still no hope. Fails GNG and MUSICBIO due to lack of available reliable sources for this subject. KGirlTrucker81 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 15:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 15:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 15:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per G5, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Papamayani. GAB^gab 20:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 19:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rakefet Abergel[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Actress with a number of small parts and appearances, but I can't see her getting past WP:NACTOR. There were some small, recurring roles in minor TV shows, but they don't seem significant. Maybe notable some day, but not at this point. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Currently it's TOOSOON for a potential notable actor. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 19:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Clara Review[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. It could potentially be notable though due to its age, but I found no proof of notability. SL93 (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reluctantly. I would think its age should make it notable but all I can find is entries in Writers Market and blurbs about writers who published there. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kizuna Ai[edit]

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

BLP with no sources, quite promotional in tone, was going to BLPPROD but wanted to add additional comment on tone. DrStrauss talk 11:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable YouTube personality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhangj1079 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough, and I also think the tone is weird.Socerb102 (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Guide into the World of ICT[edit]

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

I PRODded this but it was removed. This article is an essay of original research and offers no sources. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, more suitable for WikiBooks, perhaps direct the editor there? --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 12:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 19:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly a tutorial essay not for and encyclopedia. W Nowicki (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rhadow (talk) 11:30, 29 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) 19:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Kaushik[edit]

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

Non-notable indiviual, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of passing WP:BIO. A Google News search brings up only 4 articles and none provide more than a passing mention, which is insufficient to satisfy the inclusion notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Absolutely not notable. Simply google query yields nothing. NikolaiHo^☎️ 02:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a WP:PROMO page for an "Indian celebrity wedding designer". This is hardly a claim to notability; no sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Basically spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:15, 29 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:BLPREQUESTDELETE Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Knight (graphic designer)[edit]

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

Requested by subject ticket:2017063010001561 S Philbrick (Talk) 14:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I think WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE well and truly applies. I can't find any secondary coverage of this particular Ben Knight. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reshita Boruah[edit]

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

Second place winner. Not quite notable. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete her participation in beauty pagentry was way below the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Beretta[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:ARTIST. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or userfy/draftify) Not yet notable rapper who hasn't yet released any albums or had any hits; he's had a few tracks on streaming services and an EP, and has got blog coverage but no in-depth reviews or features in the bigger music publications. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable rapper fails the GNG. As always I am not prejudiced to any means fo removal from mainspace. I thought about dropping another relist but the GNG failure is so great I decided that stretching out an inevitable delete was pointless. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:56, 30 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) 19:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kazi Asad Abid[edit]

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

the subject has appeared in press coverage (namechecking) but fails to meet WP:JOURNALIST. editor of a non-notable newspaper. Saqib (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he hasn't received any coverage in WP:RS. Greenbörg (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being chairman and chief editor of a newspaper is not an automatic notability freebie on Wikipedia just because the fact can be nominally verified in an almanac — to get a Wikipedia article for it, he would need to be the subject of sufficient coverage in reliable sources to get past WP:GNG, but nothing like that is being shown here at all. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually show the depth of sourcing needed, but he doesn't automatically get an article just for existing if this is all we can write or source about him. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 29 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) 19:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Karim Abid[edit]

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

never elected to provincial or national assembly therefore fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Saqib (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Greenbörg (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Political organizers who haven't held elected office aren't entitled to an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL just for existing, and there's nowhere near enough sourcing present to claim a WP:GNG pass in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to GForge. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FusionForge[edit]

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

Only used to promote it. Non-notable. No in-depth coverage. It is written just for directory purpose. Light2021 (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: I looked up third-party sources for this topic and found a handful of them with some coverage:

A few paragraphs in The Debian Administrator's Handbook (online version)
Discussion of FusionForge as part of the work of Software Heritage from the French Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation here
Discussion of FusionForge as part of the work of Software Heritage in Hérault Tribune.
Post from a company with good analysis of project history.

It's not enough for notability for its own article, but the content would be suitable to move into a section of GForge and redirect the article there, so that we retain the verifiable information in an appropriate place. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FusionForge contributor proposition:

As main FusionForge contributor, it would be nice to keep FusionForge page or if needed to get more visibility than be redirected to a dead project (aka GForge open source flavor). What about merging GForge into FusionForge and redirect GForge page to Fusionforge and create a dedicated page for GForge AS which is a totally different project than GForge?

Some french communication about FusionForge: https://linuxfr.org/tags/fusionforge/public
Most GForge reference are dead or are running FusionForge.

Nerville (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting idea - it makes sense that FusionForge would be more likely than GForge to get additional press in the future. I'd be fine with consolidating GForge into FusionForge instead of the other way around. I think the combination would result in an article that's meaty enough to be a decent Wikipedia article. Probably GForge AS would just be a side-note on the resulting article, instead of having its own article, unless there are a lot of sources available for it. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge GForge page into Fusionforge page: I'm fine with merging GForge page into FusionForge. That makes sense to consolidate the information into one single article. GForge AS could be a dedicated paragraph. How could we proceed? Nerville (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD needs more comments from other people before there can be a consensus decision, so while we're waiting for that, I'd recommend fleshing out the FusionForge page as much as you can: first add information from the references listed here, and then start bringing in some of the material from the GForge article. That way the article will be in a stronger state, which makes a better case for keeping it like that instead of deleting it. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Work started. Nerville (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to GForge, per all of the above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 29 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) 19:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond L. Wise[edit]

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

While sitting on the board of the ACLU is certainly an accomplish, there is a dearth of information regarding this individual. I found more info on a sex offender of this same name than I did on this attorney. Accomplished, but does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Especially for someone whose work came before the internet, a New York Times obituary that summarizes its subject's career and expressly describes him as "an authority on legal ethics" stands as solid evidence of notability. More information about his work for the ACLU, such as his part in the organization's heavily-contested WW2-era policies and his later effort to adopt a constitutional amendment to incorporate all of the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment, can be found in books such as [11] and [12]. The Times description of him as a legal ethics scholar is supported by repeated references to his book in legal cases, bar opinions, and legal publications. [13] --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:
- The argument "I found more info on a sex offender" is no argument when it comes to online search: whoever made this comment seems very inexperienced when it comes to weighing "online" vs "pre-online" reputation. Please think more carefully before making such statements. Further, one reason to create an entry like this one is precisely to create an "online" reputation for someone who is clearly more "notable" than the sex offender mentioned above.
- Further, Wise was defense attorney for William Perl in a trial related to the Rosenberg Case. (Perhaps Wikipedia watchdogs could learn to do a little more digging themselves rather than simply vote "delete"...)--Aboudaqn (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources show notability, particularly with the edits made after the nomination was made.

As an aside, please direct your arguments on this page to the notability or lack of notability of the subject of the article. There is no need to attack the nominator for what was obviously a good-faith nomination. TJRC (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ubidesk[edit]

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

Blatant Promotions. Corporate Spam. No notable coverage. Notability is highly questionable. G11 material. Light2021 (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article created and edited by a sequence of WP:SPAs. The article text describes a software item, making no claim of notability. While there are sporadic reviews, my searches are showing nothing to demonstrate WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG notability. AllyD (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per source searches, does not meet WP:GNG. Only finding passing mentions in reliable sources (e.g. [14]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:58, 29 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) 19:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Six (TV series 2)[edit]

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

This article is essentially a recreation of Six (TV series), but filled with formatting/styling errors, poor grammar/tone, copyright violations, unencyclopedic phrasing, multiple MOS:TV violations. The editor in question, PemGateway, doesn't seem to understand basic policy and gudelines, especially when it comes to editing TV articles. If you look at the edit history of Six (TV series), you'll see the editor in question make mass edits containing multiple errors, then myself having to come by and constantly clean it up and bring the article back to basic Wikipedia standards. The editor is basically creating "their version" of the article, albeit a very poor one. There does not need to be two articles, any information can be added to Six (TV series). Edit: Another editor, Launchballer previously put it up for deletion, but PemGateway deleted the notice. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – wholly redundant with Six (TV series), incorrectly named under WP:NCTV, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ERASE ME Not worth fighting with silly Pedanticists — Preceding unsigned comment added by PemGateway (talk • contribs) 08:31, July 24, 2017 (UTC)
- Note: The comment above and comments at the article would seem to be the article's original author requesting its deletion (though I'm not sure this article is subject to WP:A7 at this point...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a television editor, I can see and appreciate the page creator's zest for creating it. However, nothing substantial is within that hasn't been stated in its main series article. Usually, TV-page etiquette follows a path of main, episode-list page, then notable season articles. This appears to be the creator's intent, only poorly done and skipping some steps (namely, the first season's article. — Wylie pedia 12:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Domdeparis (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Maassen[edit]

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

The sources are all unreliable or self-published. I don't find any reliable secondary coverage and I don't see how he meets WP:MUSICBIO let alone WP:GNG.

The article claims a "huge following on spotify, soundcloud and youtube". The follower numbers in low tens of thousands don't seem huge to me. Rentier (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find sources that are independent, and absolutely no coverage. KGirlTrucker81 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 12:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Probably written by a native German speaker immediately in English, this is not a translation of its even smaller de.Wiki couterpart although it shares the same sources - which leads me to believe that this is all there is available having searched the de.Google too. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete He is more notable than people are saying I think, he is not eligible for speedy at all, you could probably argue for keep. He got mentioned in this article from The Guardian, whose website gets 150million clicks a month. [15] and there are many subject-specific sources here [16], most in German. I know there is not much point in this comment but it is best if people know what they are voting for. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my hubble opinion, i think the lemma is relevant. It comes deeply from my belly. If not "Liken Sie mich am ... or whatever". Greetings--Wald-Burger8 (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move back to draft space. No protections at this time, but a further unsupported move back to articlespace should probably warrant a move protection Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lacy (musician)[edit]

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

Some editor accepted the draft, and issues have not been addressed since the move. I'll propose moving this article back to draftspace and address those issues. KGirlTrucker81 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 11:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 11:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 11:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 11:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Actually, it doesn't appear it was ever "accepted". The editor felt that it no longer needed to be evaluated, and simply moved the article to mainspace, despite not addressing those referencing issues. After that move another editor simply "reviewed" it. Brief history, it was sent back to draft as a result of an earlier AfD, where it continued to be declined due to referencing issues. The latest decline was on July 7, again for improper sourcing. The difference between that last decline and the current article can be seen here. A lot of references doesn't make someone notable. I think it's a good thing for the community to take a look - especially since this editor has put so much work into it.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify In October 2016, this article was changed to a redirect due to lack of sourcing then changed back to an article in February 2017 [17]. It was changed to a redirect later in February 2017, as an unsourced BLP and as an alternative to deletion [18]. Bmegrl9113 began to add content with the redirect still in place [19] and the reidrect was removed by someone else [20]. It was prodded on the same day [21].

On the next day, Bmegrl9113 began to add content while still prodded, which is acceptable [22], but apparently the sourcing was not up to standards, so this was then sent to the first AfD [23]. The result of the AfD was to place in AfC. Bmegrl9113 then moved it to their user space in early March 2017 [24]. Bmegrl9113 attempted to create this as a redirect with content still in place, as a draft article (in the user space) [25] and I don't know the reason.

This was later removed as unacceptable in the user space and as a draft article [26] along with main space categories. Bmegrl9113 later moved the page back to draft space [27]. That same day they added content and refs but the submission was also later declined on that same day [28]. By 7 July this Draft had been declined three times (please scroll down) [29] after many edits by Bmegrl9113.

On 21 July 2017, Bmegrl9113 moved this from the Draft space to the Main space [30] with the apparent insufficient rationale - "Has enough reputable references (more than other articles that haven't ever been nominated for deletion)". And here we are. Bmegrl9113 seems to have done most of the editing and moving the article. Enthusiasm is appreciated, but if the article is not ready for main space then please honor that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Shea (journalist)[edit]

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

Struggling to find reliable sources that have any significant coverage on the subject, rather than just passing mentions. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - this article should have never been approved for creation. The editor / creator is an affiliate and close personal friend of the subject and his business: Dan Shea history; and has displayed a heavy COI with their editing / monitoring of the page which borders on promotional advertising for the subject not complying with NPOV. Once brought to the editor's attention, the editor in question quickly back-tracked and made it known they were affiliated with 6 other subjects and articles in the Louisiana area covered by Wikipedia. Not only should this article be deleted, but the other articles this editor has either created or edits / monitors should be called into question. This missed speedy deletion the first time; and an AfD due to consensus. Don't let it happen again! Maineartists (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are plenty of impressive sources in the article, but none of them are about the subject or cover him in any detail at all. I looked for sources covering the subject and found nothing but mentions, "the new owner is Dan Shea" and "this business decision was made by Dan Shea" and the like. BLPs require high-quality, non-trivial sources about the subject and those simply don't appear to exist. Woodroar (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially per Woodroar. It's hard to find much of substance about this person. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The Columbian Journalism Librarian (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per G11 - blatant promotion. Much of the content was also a copyvio from http://www.sophat-chann.com/bluecore-inside-definition/

Bluecore inside[edit]

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

incorrect capitalization Channsophat (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Bluecore inside[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the Residue Classes of Real Numbers and Its Topological Properties[edit]

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

Self-promotion; the article is only sourced to one primary source; the author predictably removed a PROD template. Ymblanter (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Copied and pasted from a 2006 master's thesis [31]. No evidence of notability. Essentially, this is original research. Probably not G12-eligible since it is likely that the editor of our article is the author of the thesis. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, as per nom and Eppstein. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to introduce as if it were a new discovery something that is in fact a very familiar concept, used whenever Fourier series of periodic functions are discussed. It's written in the style of a paper introducing something novel, and not at all like a Wikipedia article. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It appears to be trying to sell a familiar idea—curling up the real line into a circle by identifying points—as an amazing and novel thing. XOR'easter (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After discounting what appear to be IP/sock votes, unanimous consensus to delete. No consensus on the redirect, so I won't implement that as part of the close, but no prejudice against somebody doing so on their own WP:BOLDness. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nitin Chandra[edit]

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

Not a notable film maker. Independent reliable sources do not discuss his work. IMDB and YouTube are not independent reliable sources. Google search finds the usual vanity hits, which means that he exists. Everyone exists; not every filmmaker is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - broadly agree. Appears to be part of a clumsy marketing exercise. Deb (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - creator is now blocked for 24 hours for removing comments from this discussion (after an earlier warning). His conduct should be treated as a separate matter from the decision whether to delete.Deb (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"keep" Nitin Chandra is famous for his directed movie Mithila Makkhan which grabed India's National award in Maithili language. 2405:205:140C:B695:BB56:C094:C78E:C0F9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC) — 2405:205:140C:B695:BB56:C094:C78E:C0F9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid "votes" by creator[edit]

The two comments below were both added by the creator, who has already voted to keep the article. They will not count as independent opinions.Deb (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Johnpacklambert he is a notable director directed lots of regional Indian movies and also a Bollywood film Once Upon a Time in Bihar. Take references from links in article or Google.
Keep It is requested to plz go through the article. He has directed number of films including films of Bollywood. I request to put this discussion in Bihar Wikipedia forum (if any). I am new here dont know much.
Comment - Bihar isn't a language. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Once Upon a Time in Bihar, his only claim to fame, not sufficient for a stand-alone article but potential search term. So Why 18:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mariel García[edit]

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

non notable person (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the record I created this article back when I thought that beauty pageant winners at the national level had default notability. I have since come to realize that beauty pageant winners only have notability as shown by significant, sustained coverage. We lack that here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, as no one else has added any substantive content to the article, I think we may be able to speed this along per WP:G7. I've tagged it accordingly with a link here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Bautista[edit]

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

non notable person (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a total lack of sources to show a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My sweeps of Philippine news did not find much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per G11 - blatant promotion. Much of the content was also a copyvio from http://www.sophat-chann.com/bluecore-inside-definition/

Bluecore inside[edit]

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

incorrect capitalization Channsophat (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Bluecore inside[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jamal Ehsani. Per nominator's own suggestion. Please follow Wikipedia:Merging next time instead of bringing it here. So Why 14:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kulliyaat-e-Jamal[edit]

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

This article's references are heavily used to support the Jamal Ehsani's article. This book atleast doesn't deserve a stand-alone article. Best, merge the useful information. Greenbörg (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Songs of Blood and Sword[edit]

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

Not significant coverage for this book per WP:NBOOK comparing to The Shadow of the Crescent Moon. Democracy (Fiction) was redirected short time ago. Best, It will be better to merge if any useful information. Otherwise, redirect it. Greenbörg (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – easily meets WP:GNG & WP:BOOKCRIT's #1, which states that "the book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles,...and reviews". It has received quality reviews from all across the globe. In fact, among others, it has been reviewed by the likes of William Dalrymple (historian) & Thomas Lippman. Here are some of them:

Fatima Bhutto's memoir "Songs of Blood and Sword," reviewed by Thomas Lippman. The Washington Post.
Songs of Blood and Sword by Fatima Bhutto. The Guardian
Songs of Blood and Sword. Financial Times.
A daughter`s song. Dawn (newspaper)
The Bhutto boondoggle. The Express Tribune.
Songs of Blood and Sword, By Fatima Bhutto. The Independent
Scenes of chaos. Daily Jang.
Blood relatives. The Spectator
Fatima Bhutto ajusta cuentas con su familia. La Vanguardia

And I haven't even included dodgy reviews like this one & this one. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn as I agree. Greenbörg (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sole "keep" argument, unfortunately, seemed to be a combination of WP:NEGLECT, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and WP:PLEASEDONT. Sorry Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Young and the Restless episodes[edit]

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

Page contains absolutely no reliable sources, and to attempt to create a comprehensive list of episodes for an American soap opera, which airs five-days per week, and dates back to 1973, it would be humanly impossible to accomplish. livelikemusic talk! 12:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 19:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

we have lists of episodes for other programs, not sure why we couldn't have them for this?Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. To say that to create this list would be "humanly impossible to accomplish" is a little bit defeatist. There is a definite interest among viewers of this show to understand where the show came from and the links from this list provide that information in a month-by-month, week-by-week fashion, with notable individual episodes listed as well. This information is not readily available and has been compiled from a number of newspaper and magazine sources, as well as the original scripts themselves. Many viewers have requested that such a list/ episode guide be made. It is at least, if not more important, than the article about Genoa City which lists information which is not actually specifically mentioned on the show (ie addresses of characters' houses). There is no reason why the article can't be moved back as a user draft until it is complete, but to delete it entirely is to stymie the goodwill efforts of a user who aims to provide in-depth knowledge and research about this show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.92.132 (talk) 11:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The above comments from the IP are taken into account, as it is possible to do a complete list of the tens of thousands of episodes for this soap. Summaries of soaps though should be limited to important storylines that can be summarised in a block of episodes, not every single one. Ajf773 (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Firstly, it should be moved to List of The Young and the Restless episodes, as is standard practice for television episode lists. However, and secondly, is should begin as a draft article to prevent future AfD listings. Thirdly, separate episode list articles should have more than just production codes and the years they fall under. There needs to be a home list of episodes, with forks/branches to the respective years, because this show has another three years contracted and could total ~12,000 episodes. — Wylie pedia 18:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Ajf773; failing that, move as per Wyliepedia. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deleting this page is a bit of a drastic step. The user should be given a chance to incorporate the changes recommended. If you look at the page, it does actually have links to the first three years of the show (I'm assuming this was what was meant by "forks/ branches to the respective years") and I'm sure the user will add years more as time progresses. It seems like it is difficult to provide much more information on this page other than the episode numbers because soaps don't actually have episodes with proper title names like TV series do. The page The Young and the Restless characters is in a similar position to this page in that it does not provide much more information other than the character names and only one citation - but it then has links to each character. Nobody suggests that page should be deleted so I see no problem in keeping this page (Young and the Restless episodes) for the same reason. The argument put forward that this page has no citations is a bit unfair - they've given one source at least, which is the William Bill script archive at the UCLA - I'm not sure how else they can reference episode numbers. If you look at the pages for the individual years, there are citations - indeed, 1976 gives a lot of citations. The yearly pages also do the episodes in (weekly or monthly) blocks of episodes, as has been suggested above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medhergon1 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC) — Medhergon1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Alaniz[edit]

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

Non-notable retired athlete, unlikely to become notable. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASE/N, and WP:NCOLLATH. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Career minor leaguer who is not notable. Lepricavark (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for baseball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BASE/N....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Rasool Gondal Advocate[edit]

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

Reason Tgondal6 (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir banay ga Pakistan[edit]

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

This slogan hasn't received widespread coverage. Best, it could be redirected to Kashmir conflict. Greenbörg (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. the way you mentioned to find this article in sources is not working you should go for this news, books, images--Baltistani (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Non-notable political slogan. To meet WP:GNG, there must be at least two reliable sources that discuss the subject, not merely mention it in the passing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there aren't enough reliable sources that give significant coverage to the slogan for it to be considered notable. DrStrauss talk 16:38, 31 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clinked[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private company / software. Significant RS coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH not found. Created by Special:Contributions/Rich_andersson with no other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article authored by a disclosed employee of the company originating the software and describing its features and funding history. Neither reaching the semi-final for a Cisco British Innovation Award nor an earlier Red Herring 100 Europe Award is sufficient to establish encyclopaedic notability for the software, and my searches are not finding better. Fails WP:NSOFT, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to draft. Until additional sources can be found Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Price[edit]

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

Game designer. The article does not establish her notability (WP:BIO). Being a conference presenter isn't much in this regard, and a Google search doesn't provide immediate indications of other notability factors. Sandstein 06:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise move to draft space so that it can be worked on. BOZ (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
move to draft Not a bad start, but not enough sources yet. Expect there will be more found. Hobit (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) f e minist 09:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lechmi[edit]

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

Unremarkable film, no discussion in reliable independent verifiable sources. KDS4444 (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This film hasnt released yet so this shouldn't be considered unremarkable until after the release KuleenK 11:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(This isn't how the English Wikipedia works... KDS4444 (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Per WP:NFF, WP:WIP, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:POTENTIAL that's how it does work. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I get the sense that we are going off on wrong feet, you and I... WP:NFF only gives direction as to when a film should not have its own article; WP:WIP, which states that Wikipedia is a "work in progress", does not mean we should retain articles on subjects which are not independently notable; WP:IMPERFECT states that perfection is not required— I am not arguing that this article is not perfect, I am arguing that it is not notable; WP:POTENTIAL states that article potential, not its current state, should be the measure of inclusion— I don't disagree! I have evaluated the references here and those I could find elsewhere and I do not see evidence of notability. That doesn't mean it might not be notable at some point, it only means that so far, based on what we've been able to find, it is not notable now (and who knows— perhaps never will be). What you've added there is a laundry list of WP:AADD— I am still not sure I accept your reasoning to retain this particular article based on what either of us has found so far, its potential and imperfections and curiosity aside. If a subject is not notable, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it, yes? KDS4444 (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then we shall disagree. I believe it is notable enough to merit and article and continue being improved, and you do not. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of— I do not see evidence of its notability; you, however, do, which is what I do not understand and is why we are differing here. Notability shouldn't be a matter of "belief", it should be a matter of "evidence", and what either of us believes shouldn't matter at that point. I do not believe that you've reviewed/ read the evidence you have offered, esp. with regard to some of it being in a foreign language that neither of us understands or can show a translation of— I have considered the other evidence, including Google Translate versions of the foreign language text, and I don't think any of it qualifies. You can disagree with me all you like, but you could shut me up better if you reviewed your own evidence thoroughly before offering it up as evidence of notability, yes? KDS4444 (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry KDS4444, but due diligence shows the topic IS discussed directly and in some detail in independent verifiable sources Using Now Running, Filmibeat, Metro Matinee, Deccan Chronicle, Times of India and others, the article can be corrected to meet MOS:FILM through regular editing. Releases next month. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: the article in the Times of India (first one I went to) is an article that talks about how an actress in the movie was injured on the set. It is not "about" the movie, it is about the actress and her injury (please tell me you read each of these references you mentioned and evaluated them for appropriateness, yes? Though if you did, this one, for starters, doesn't make the cut). If you are going to refute a deletion nomination (and I say, by all means!) then please throw appropriate references out there (esp. ones that discuss the subject itself in a non-trivial manner and in multiple, reliable, independent sources). Having the film mentioned in passing in an article about an actress getting injured does not meet this qualification! But do your other references? Please advise! Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, the Deccan Chronicle article has no actual content! What are you doing? And the Metro Matinée article by "Maya" that only lists the cast members? Did you read these? The "filmibeat" article isn't even in English. Michael, I am now convinced that you did not actually read any of these "references." If you want to discuss this further, maybe we should go to my talk page. Listing a series of "references" that you are somehow sure demonstrate the notability of this film without actually reviewing any of them and using this as a defense of a "Keep" vote is... Let's not discuss this further here. Please bring it to my talk page (...and consider removing your Keep vote here, okay? If others want to make a keep argument based on bona fide evidence of reliability, they should be encouraged to do so. I know its awkward....). Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: Lechmi Shajeer Sha Parvathy Ratheesh Biju Sopanam

Sorry, KDS4444, and please do not be offended, but your brief deletion rational stated that there was "no discussion in reliable independent verifiable sources". Telling folks such as if a fact is misleading and required clarification. And stating that I did not read sources seems to confirm that you did not.

Under WP:SIGCOV, sources never have to be "all about" or "only about" the film, just so long as they do address it directly and in some detail. Times of India tells us that a major star was injured while shooting one of her scenes in Trivandrum for the film. It also confirms the director/writer and that actress Molly Kannammally is in a major role. Confirming those production facts is significant, though brief. It must be remembered that the guideline for "significant" is not the same as a non-guideline thought toward "substantial". Metro Matinee tells our readers that Biju Sopanam of the Indian sitcom Uppum Mulakum is confirmed in this film, while also confirming a shoot location and confirming an injury when a star did not use a stunt double. Not lengthy, but significant production information.

And sources do not have to be text only. The Deccan Chronicle provides a news clip speaking toward the film's projected release. Text, no. Video, yes. Acceptable under WP:RS WP:NEWSORG.

AND under WP:NONENG it is perfectly understood and acceptable that a non-English film can have non-English sourcing. "ലച്ച്മി" gives us non-English sourcing with a Malayalam Google search.

Again, your brief deletion rational stated that there was "no discussion in reliable independent verifiable sources" in unintentionally misleading when the topic is discussed (even if briefly) in multiple reliable sources. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should have said "no significant discussion" in such sources. I also didn't mention "secondary" or "published" or "non-trivial". My point was that I did not see appropriate discussion in appropriate sources to qualify this film as notable— and I do not consider a series of trivial and off-hand mentions as adding up to that qualification. The confirmation of facts about the film is the equivalent of saying "Existence=notability", which we both know is not the case. I am not doubting the film's existence. Also: WP:NONENG was not my point— I am aware that non-English news sources can be used to support a notability argument. My point was that I doubted that you yourself read that source (or others) and evaluated it as to whether or not it supported a notability claim (did you read it? How does it support such a claim?). The brevity of my deletion rationale does not thereby make the film notable, it only means the rationale was brief. Regarding the Deccan Chronicle video— I didn't realize you spoke fluent ~~Hindi~~ ~~Urdu~~ Tamil (?), since the site provides no transcription nor translation of the video content. Can you give me a quote where the film's projected release is discussed? Much appreciated. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep calm, carry on...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 08:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 14:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semkovskaia[edit]

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

This is a puff piece about a non-notable painter, it fails every point on WP:ARTIST (contested prod). eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has significant coverage in reliable sources press coverage such as Publimetro Colombia, La República, El Nuevo Siglo, Globedia, Guadalupe Garcia, Destinos para viajeros, Notas de Acción, and Notivariedade as linked in the article so passes WP:GNG which overrides WP:NARTIST . Any promotionalism can be cleaned up.Atlantic306 (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How many of those sources count as reliable? Globedia is user contributed which clearly rules it out. And coverage needs to significant as well, and it's far from obvious that either criterion is satisfied in this case.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

see my comment below: four of the sources are weak/reliable, but they all refer to one event. Most of the sources were either duplicated, unreliable, puffed up or used to support claims the sources did not contain. There was a lot of intentional manipulation of weak sources to make the article look larger than it is. AFD was a good call.104.163.153.14 (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The main contributor has an undisclosed conflict of interest with the subject. Mduvekot (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An obvious puff piece by the artist. (IMHO no one except the artist has the willpower and persistence to construct an article on such a thin case of notability.) I removed Globepedia as a source (a Spanish Wikipedia variant) and several blogs tat were being used as sources. I also discovered numerous instances where the references given did not support the claim. I removed several duplicate refs that were two-sentence announcements for talks, and the entire section called "newspapers that mention..." as it was just a way of duplicating hte inline refs. After all that there are three or four weak but acceptable sources that all refer to one event-- the large mural she painted in Columbia. At most it is BLP1E. Fails each count of WP:ARTIST. 104.163.153.14 (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-Notable. I'm pretty certain I voted to delete her before, when the result was delete, but the time has flown by since September, when it was re-created. -Roxy the dog. bark 16:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Where I Want To Die[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was listed once before and the issue still stands. Has no notability and fails WP:GNG with no reliable sources talking about the game. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - doesn't seem to even be mentioned in any RSs.--IDV^talk 08:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sourcing. First AFD should have deleted it, IMO. -- ferret (talk) 12:05, 27 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 Deepsky. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Channel[edit]

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

This article is a promotional puff piece for an individual that I do not believe meets WP:GNG. Cannot find in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. All sources in the current article are either primary sources, are about his previous notable band Deepsky, or only mention this individual as peripheral to the main topic. I did find a BBC article on this individual, but it qualifies for WP:1E as it is about a single incident where he was asked by immigration authorities to leave Jersey. This individual was part of a notable group though, Deepsky, but notability is not inherited and Summer Channel does not demonstrate notability outside of Deepsky. Hence I am proposing that this article be deleted and redirected to Deepsky. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Power~enwiki (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Deepsky, omitting the trivia. I agree with the assessment of the sources, and could find nothing better. Fails WP:NBIO.

(SC's comment in that BBC news item is a right piece of cheek. Change "Jersey" to "New Jersey", and ask what would happen to a non-U.S. citizen.) Narky Blert (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. So there was enough material presented to counterweight the nominator's rationale, whilst the only other delete !vote appears to be based on the quality of the prose (cf., WP:DINC), which is not a reason for deletion. Likewise, the keep !votes- although 'weak;- were based firmly on policy. There was certainly no consensus to delete, and enough strength of argument against that to fall towards a 'keep' outcome. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 13:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alton Jones Jr[edit]

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

A fisherman for whom the only refs are a niche fishing publisher - for the whole lot see here it certainly doesn't add to notability by a very long way. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --George AKA Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 15:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reads like it's self published or someone close to Jones wrote it. However, there is coverage on Jones such as this article [32] by Scout.com a sports publishing company in which Jones is profiled, I think there is a good chance Jones has enough coverage for an article, but this article needs a complete re-write. Cllgbksr (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- mostly gibberish, as in: "Alton Jones Jr: Was born in Lorena, Texas and is his father’s predecessor". What the what?? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'm no fishing expert (or even knowledgeable in any way) but the coverage mentioned by Cllgbksr above, combined with sources like [33] [34] [35] [36] seems to be sufficient per WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Content problems (like "gibberish") can be addressed by editing, which also includes WP:STUBIFYing until someone else writes better prose. Regards So Why 12:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Winning awards in regards to his fishing exploits establishes the notability of the subject in my opinion. The page does need to be improved, and is too promotional at the moment, but could be trimmed down.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted G11, with current title deleted G8. (non-admin closure) f e minist 09:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

T. E. Abinesh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:BIO, promotional tone Kleuske (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- basically spam. Part of a walled garden created by Special:Contributions/Praveenkumar.m89 which also includes Abi & Abi Pictures. No independent sourcing; all I see is PR-driven coverage or passing mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 29 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Littlstar[edit]

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

This company does not meet notability guidelines. References are press releases, articles about other topics that mention Littlstar in passing, and routine coverage in niche publications - no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The creator of the article is a single-purpose account with an apparent connection to the company and the main contributor declared himself to be ""Founder/CEO Littlstar", so there is an apparent WP:COI/WP:PAID issue here as well. Peacock (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are significant sources in this article, and it includes relevant information on the formation on the industry, challenges, and of a company that has had material global impact on Virtual Reality. In no way is it meant to be an advertisement. There are plenty of other places to do that, and there are countless companies on Wikipedia that the structure of this article follows. This is a matter of record, and just because someone close to the subject matter is commenting and editing, doesn't mean that a conflict of interest comes into play. Can you please explain what a more neutral point of view would look like? This seems like a slight abuse of admin power because someone is actually contributing information and ensuring completeness.Tony.mugavero (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, this bylined news piece in Variety by Janko Roettgers, its Senior Silicon Valley Correspondent, is a bona fide reliable source. There are clearly serious COI issues though. Mugavero does not seem to have the slightest concern about it, other than to accuse others of "abuse of power." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the nod on the sources, of which many more were added (including 4 by Janko as noted above). 24+ of them, which include not only bona fide sources globally, but SEC filing and trademarks. Genuinely curious on how we make this information that fits the guidelines, as we spend quite a bit of time/energy speaking on, informing, and transferring knowledge in the VR industry. It seems like a simple history of the company, which of course people at Littlstar know the most. While we're certainly close to the subject matter, if you look at the linked articles, there is no question that Littlstar powers a material part of the virtual reality industry globally and in this case at least 24 other places across 3 years have been verifying notability.Tony.mugavero (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I think you should be blocked from editing Wikipedia, based on your conduct. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that. It's unwarranted however. Genuinely want to understand how to add to the record, and I'm in the process of updating numerous places related to VR and not related to Littlstar. Is this how you guys treat editors? Tony.mugavero (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out some reference sources that were used to model the article after. Namely Vimeo, Nat_Geo_Wild, and Esquire_Network, but there are obviously many more that are similar. These examples are very similar in style and include fewer or similar numbers of references. Genuinely want to get good information out there and honor the Wikipedia guidelines, so if there is a good way to help alleviate the COI issue (beyond 32 references), we'll do what needs to be done. Any suggestions?

There is a common way of dealing with this kind of COI at Wikipedia. You should restrict yourself to proposing edits on the Talk page of the article and not edit the article at all. If the article survives this discussion, you risk being blocked if you continue to edit the article directly in the manner you have to date.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok this makes sense, and I'll start doing that. I also added the Paid Template to my user page. Thank you for the clarification, and going forward, I'll suggest edits via the talk page.

Delete Fails GNG. I could do a breakdown of why each source fails either WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND if required, but the references fail the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HighKing's point about CORPDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The article content is entirely promotional, ending with:

Littlstar has recently expanded into Asia with the launch of Littlstar Japan with Sony Music Entertainment (Japan) and Littlstar Korea with CJ Powercast! [33]

Wikipedia is not a means of promotion or a replacement for a company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:10, 29 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back box saver[edit]

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

I cannot see how this widget is notable. TheLongTone (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do we need to change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupert1314 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to find significant, independent coverage in multiple WP:Reliable sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be quite the niche product. Not notable. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 08:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese voice actors dubbing Disney characters[edit]

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

Fancruft listing that has no notability and practically zero referencing. Why is it important to keep track of who has dubbed for Disney? And why are English voice actors in this list? And what about live-action Disney characters? Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international Winx Club voice actors. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_18#Category:Funimation_voice_actors on reasons why listing by dub company isn't helpful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC) updated 23:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Along with the items mentioned by AngusWOOF this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE info. It might work on the Disney Wikia but it fails WP:GNG here. MarnetteD|Talk 21:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Disney is very big in Japan, and dubbing of Western films is a major task for the Japanese showbusiness industry. Unfortunately I'm not good enough at Japanese to help write the article, but I'd be cautious about deleting this. I suggest translating this into English. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does Disney's being big in Japan have to do with the English language Wikipedia and its policies? MarnetteD|Talk 23:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to translate as there is no JP Wikipedia article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: @MarnetteD: I believe his caution was because there were nearly 100,000 sources] in Richard Cavell's search results that discussed Japanese voice-over for Disney projects. Needing work (even a lot of work) is a poor deletion rational. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:GOOGLEHITS in action. It doesn't show how this is notable. Yes, all sorts of actors have voiced on Disney projects, and yes, it's possible to connect Japanese credits to a Disney film, show, or broadcast, but per WP:LISTCRUFT there isn't any encyclopedic article about Japanese voice acting on Disney projects. This would be like making a list of American voice actors who voiced on Hayao Miyazaki films or who voiced on TV Tokyo shows. It's a trivial intersection and also bothers WP:PERFCAT if it were a category. Also note, this grouping is different from including Japanese Category:Disney people or inclusion in WikiProject Disney. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No where in my post did I state that it needed work. I did say that it is WP:INDISCRIMINATE which it clearly is. MarnetteD|Talk 04:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please share how it is you determine a sourcable list with specific inclusion criteria is somehow "indiscriminate". Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft and largely hard to source. We aren't supposed to be a Disney fansite. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Not "listcuft" as the inclusion parameters are quite specific and ir meets WP:SALAT, WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:LISTPURP. And not impossible to cite as sources exist. The difficulty is the time and work that would be required by WP:SEP. And your last sentence could be applied to any Disney-related article, so is not exactly helpful. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I said hard to source, which isn't the same thing as impossible. I fail to see how this isn't just an indiscriminate collection of data. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry SNUGGUMS, but a sourcable list with specific inclusion criteria is not indiscriminate. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. " So, yes, it's verifiable, but where's the encyclopedic content of assembling such a list? To pick on another franchise, this is like constructing a Japanese voice actor list for List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors and reasoning that Marvel films are big worldwide. The equivalent JA article doesn't even talk about the Japanese voice actor dubs. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Schmidt, , criteria is finite and it looks to satsfy WP:LISTCRITERIA. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Disney animated universe characters or Delete. There is room there to add another column for the Japanese voice dub actors, my only concern is what about the rest of the world? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added merge tags which point to this discussion since I brought it up and want to keep the discussion centralized. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything to merge. The characters on that page already have the originating voice actors. However, if JA Wikipedia really wants their own pages and wants to add Japanese VAs, then that effort could be done. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Fortdj33 (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I struck my opinion above as Angus is right. I do not see this un-sourced broad list as anything more than stats. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per AngusWOOF. Unsourced list that only interests a specific audience. At best, the content could be briefly mentioned in their respective character lists, or be moved to Wikia. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:22, 28 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Menashe Miller[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as deputy mayor of a township. This is not a level of office that confers an automatic WP:NPOL pass, but the article is not referenced well enough to satisfy the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our inclusion criteria for local officeholders -- of the 18 footnotes here, nine of them are primary sources, such as his "our council" profile on the township government's own self-published website about itself and raw tables of election results, and seven of the other nine are blogs or YouTube videos. And of the two that actually qualify as reliable sources, one of them is here only to support a tangential assertion about the township's demographics, while completely failing to even mention Miller's name -- so it's not coverage of him at all. All of which means that nothing here earns him an article under either NPOL or GNG. Bearcat (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NPOL. Madg2011 (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This looks and reads like a typical Wikipedia article, with neutral point of view and appropriate graphics. This does not seem to be a promotional piece, but a legitimate biography.Catherinejarvis (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be kept on Wikipedia, an article also has to have a notability claim that passes a notability standard, and sources that pass our reliable sourcing standards — neither of which are present here at all. We don't keep articles just because of what they look like, or because they have pretty pictures on them — as important a condition as article quality is, it's not a sufficient condition by itself if there's no actual notability to speak of. Bearcat (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and per NPOL. only (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 14:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Rest Your Head[edit]

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

This article is little more than a stub; I suggest it should be rolled into the article on the publisher. The sole reference is to a specialty encyclopedia that was originally published by the same company as the game itself. Ewilen (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - again, the nominator has it wrong; the 'specialty encyclopedia' in question was originally published by Mongoose, not by Evil Hat. Don't Rest Your Head has been extensively reviewed and is one of Hicks' most respected game designs; definitely meets WP:GNG. The current state of the stub is not grounds for deletion - in fact, the nomination contains no valid grounds for deletion whatsoever. Newimpartial (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Newimpartial. Designers was originally published by Mongoose, which is totally independent of Evil Hat, and the original version discussed the game plenty, while the subsequent edition of the book published by Evil Hat simply expanded on the material. The same applies to all four articles nominated by the same nominator, and I will look for more sources / reviews for all of them. BOZ (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment note that Ken Hite reviewed DRYH at Gaming Report - the broken link is [37] and I don't have time to try to find it in an archive at the moment, but it was the review that led me to buy the game. A Ken Hite review along with Designers & Dragons unquestionably meets WP:GNG. I suggest that the nominator drop the stick. Newimpartial (talk) 04:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 14:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swashbucklers of the 7 Skies[edit]

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

Sole reference is a specialty encyclopedia originally published by the same publisher; this article reads as a gloss of the article contained therein. I suggest that this is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Ewilen (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nominator manages to pack two errors into one sentence; neither Designers and Dragons (original publisher: Mongoose) or Swashbucklers of the 7 Skies (original publisher, Atomic Sock Monkey Press) was "originally published by the same publisher" (Evil Hat) so there is no COI as implied by the nominator. The game is one of Chad Underkoffler's most successful, and has been extensively reviewed in various media; it is certainly Notable. Newimpartial (talk) 04:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may be mistaken on those details, but Designers and Dragons is currently published in a new edition by Evil Hat, as is Sot7S. (I can only find references to an EH edition of the latter.) There are no other references in the article. 04:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep per Newimpartial. Designers was originally published by Mongoose, which is totally independent of Evil Hat, and the original version discussed the game plenty, while the subsequent edition of the book published by Evil Hat simply expanded on the material. The same applies to all four articles nominated by the same nominator, and I will look for more sources / reviews for all of them. BOZ (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swashbucklers has also been reviewed by Ken Hite and by Ryan Macklin, so we shouldn't really be hesitating about Notability. Nominations for deletion need to take into account all the sources that could be used, not only ones cited in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 14:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Penny for My Thoughts[edit]

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

Stub article hasn't been improved since 2015. Sole reference is to a specialty encyclopedia, suggesting that the subject is only "notable" to completists and list-makers. I suggest that a mention within the article on the publisher is sufficient to document the existence of this game. Ewilen (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as we do have one WP:RS and I will try to find more, but failing that merge to Evil Hat Productions. BOZ (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If sources are not forthcoming, I'd recommend a redirect rather than a merge. Newimpartial (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 14:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday, Robot![edit]

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

Stub article hasn't been improved since it was created over two years ago. There are no references at all. I suggest this title isn't notable on its own; the mention within the article on publisher is sufficient. Ewilen (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as we do have one WP:RS and I will try to find more, but failing that merge to Evil Hat Productions. BOZ (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If sources are not forthcoming, I'd recommend a redirect rather than a merge. Newimpartial (talk) 06:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fountain guards[edit]

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

Quite questionable relevance. Article does not fit even minimum quality standards afaic.--Moduin (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced, no indication of notability, just in-universe fancruft. Sandstein 07:13, 30 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. Assuming Stepho's arguments are apparently towards keeping the article, I'm closing this likewise keeping in view the keep !votes of other editors. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 14:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calty Design Research[edit]

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

Merge or merely delete, as nothing encyclopedic has been added here. Only Car models in this whole article. Significance is only that its a part of Toyota. No doubt its one of the biggest Automobile company. But creating their division as Wiki pages, where it does not add any value like giving car models page links? Light2021 (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Light2021

, didn't you read on the talk page about how we are gathering information to expand it? Couldn't you wait another week to see the results? Stepho talk 22:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The normal length of time at Afd is a minimum seven days. You still should have time to improve it... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the article a lot. When @Light2021: first raised concern about the article I outlaid on the talk page the ways to correct the perceived faults. My plan was to do this in my spare time over the coming weeks. But Light2021 waited only 3 days, did not participate in the discussion at all and instead initiated this attempt to delete it. I have improved the article a lot but I have only had time to do about half of what I wanted. I still have many research clues to chase down (see comments on the talk page and hidden comments in the article) and only limited time to devote to this project. Further improvements will have to be on the order of weeks, not days, as per normal for most articles. Stepho talk 22:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify may be a viable alternative!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made considerable improvements to the article. As noted above, I'm only halfway through the improvements (many laid out in on-page comments and on the talk page) but have been quite busy lately on real-world projects (ie, job and family). Over the next month or so I intended to improve it further. To my knowledge, the purpose of this article is quite within the realm of Wikipedia and is written in a factual manner. Can we consider this discussion closed? Stepho talk 09:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article in Automotive News, plus the sources in the article, show that Calty is a notable topic separate from its parent company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article has been significantly improved compared to the last time I saw it, especially on the referencing side, and now there's more than enough to back notability. --Urbanoc (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Academy[edit]

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

Non-notable school. It opened, it had 50 students (per year), moved to a strip mall temporarily, and then closed. The only non-primary sources I can find about this place are generic "this place existed" listings. Primefac (talk) 02:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to support notability. Kablammo (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing in the article or in searches indicate anything to show notability. It is reasonably certain this will not change as the school is no longer extant. John from Idegon (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights in Antarctica[edit]

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

Extremely silly article with no encyclopedic need to exist. Antarctica is a landmass whose only permanent residents are animals, so what this really does is list the state of LGBT rights in the mainlands of the countries that happen to have territorial claims on it. ("Adoption by same-sex couples"? Who is a queer scientist on a six-month research expedition going to adopt there, a penguin?) No prejudice against recreation in 2050 or beyond, when global warming has melted the ice caps and people are moving to Antarctica because whatever land is left there has actually become habitable, but as of right now the state of LGBT rights in Antarctica is strictly sophistry of no practical significance. Bearcat (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real encyclopedic need to exist. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is not properly formatted as per Wikipedia guidelines; it is also somewhat overkill.TH1980 (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Extremely silly indeed, but I haven't yet spotted a reason for deletion. Thincat (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights in a landmass with no resident human population = topic that doesn't really exist. That's not reason enough? Bearcat (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a person does not need to be a resident to have rights and it looks as if the rights of these people are (generally?) the same as in the countries (potentially) claiming sovereignty. I think it's a "real" topic but maybe one not written about elsewhere as a whole and maybe not worth documenting per se. Vaguely similar was this AFD, its DRV and RFC, then WP:AN discussion and move. Was it all worth it? Thincat (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think article 8 of the Antarctic Treaty System covers all that is necessary (residents come under the jurisdiction of their respective countries). This is about as relevant as Criminal law on Mars or Ethical behavior of Donald Trump. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A stricter (and more pedantic) title would be "List of LGBT rights in the sovereign states with territorial claims in Antarctica" and I suspect the overall topic of the list has not been written about in reliable sources, nor is there evidence that legal rights are determined by the state with the territorial claim. The case of the possible murder of Rodney Marks, an Australian citizen in NZ territory at a US base[38] indicates the uncertainty of the legal situation. Fascinating. Thincat (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question So where would one put British Antarctic Territory? South America perhaps? See notes 17 & 18 - "The Marriage Ordinance 2016" (PDF). Retrieved 10 May 2017.

Jump up ^ "Review of British Antarctic Territory legislation: changes to the marriage and registration ordinances - GOV.UK". www.gov.uk. Retrieved 10 May 2017. - or would people rather this was included at all either? Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a very fair question. So far as I can see the BAT marriage law follows English law but in principle it might not.[39] However, where there are significant differences they would be well worth noting in British Antarctic Territory rather than burying in this list. I'm ignorant- are there other states that potentially apply different law in the Antarctic areas they claim? It seems to me it would be far more helpful to readers to discuss (not in list form) where such differences arise and what the differences are. I would be interested to see Law in Antarctica with, if appropriate, LBGT issues spun out but since the broad topic doesn't seem to be covered I would certainly not oppose a specific article. Thincat (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 14:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli involvement in the Syrian Civil War[edit]

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

Israel is not actually involved in the Syrian conflict. This article is pointless. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you expand? The article does have substantial and well-referenced content. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 12:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article Israeli involvement in the Syrian Civil War was originally named Israeli intervention in the Syrian Civil War to emphasize incidents related to the Iran-Israel proxy conflict (see [40]). It later was renamed to its current name and aggregated three issues - the Humanitarian aid during the Syrian Civil War supplied by Israel, the minor Israeli–Syrian ceasefire line incidents during the Syrian Civil War and alleged cross-border attacks by Hezbollah against Israel and Israel against Hezbollah during the Syrian Civil War in the context of Iran-Israel proxy conflict (mostly unverified). The three issues are somewhat interrelated and having to do with the Syrian Civil War, but do not make up actual and notable "organized involvement" as was concluded several times at talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel, thus i removed copy-paste parts from Humanitarian aid during the Syrian Civil War and Israeli–Syrian ceasefire line incidents during the Syrian Civil War. The topic is currently also discussed at talk:Syrian Civil War#RfC. I would wait for RfC conclusion to nominate this article for deletion, even though i would tend to support it - it doesn't make any point not already mentioned in Iran-Israel proxy conflict article.GreyShark (dibra) 12:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 19:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 19:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 19:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article may have drawbacks, it definitely should stay, as the involvement is obvious, if only political.Axxxion (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Isn't Israel only excluded from the SCW infobox for its involvement being "part of the separate conflict with Hezbollah" and otherwise non-lethal? This article is certainly necessary to detail Israel's non-lethal and anti-Hezbollah involvement. Nuke (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But there already is an article called Iran-Israel proxy conflict and Hezbollah involvement in the Syrian Civil War regarding Israel-Hezbollah incidents and there is Humanitarian aid during the Syrian Civil War with aspects of Israeli non-lethal assistance to Syrians. Why do we require a 4th article, which is ambiguous (Israel is not actively involved)?GreyShark (dibra) 13:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the Guardian: the Israeli military break its customary silence over raids in Syria to release a statement to admit that its aircraft had been targeted while operating there on March 17. [41] Israel is involved inside Syrian territory. --Pudeo (talk) 13:23, 29 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 07:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Telecom home phones[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTDIR. Wikipedia is not for simple listings of telephone models, and any notable information should be in the main Nortel article. SophisticatedSwampert ^Talk _contribs 01:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't see how this can pass WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Could be developed into an acceptable article in the model of Nortel payphones and Nortel business phones. WP:LISTN is not the applicable criteria here. This article is about the phones manufactured by one company over an 80 year period. ~Kvng (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is not properly done as per Wikipedia guidelines, including proper establishment of notability.TH1980 (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. About half of the participants in this discussion didn't feel strongly enough about the article to weigh in one way or another. No reason for an extraordinary third relist. A Train^talk 12:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrants in Therapy[edit]

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

I am procedurally nominating this for deletion. It was previously subject to PROD with the rationale "Non-notable band; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:BAND / WP:GNG." After deletion, the PROD was contested at ticket:2017062710024417, so I've restored the article. I can't comment on the content of the ticket due to confidentiality. I think notability is at best questionable, but I haven't put in serious WP:BEFORE time, so I'm making this nomination procedural and letting the community hash it out. Pinging the person who added the PROD: Wikipedical. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This band does not meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG requirements. No new significant coverage since February. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a Billboard review, but nothing else. Can someone do a 1980s/90s newspaper search? --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A paragraph in a 2000 Los Angeles Times article states that the duo had been performing "for more than 10 years as Tyrants in Therapy", that they had "made many records and CDs and found some commercial success on the dance club circuit", and that they were "riding the tide of interest in the genre" of performance art. "Artfully Bellying Up to the Bar Scene: From the Dark Bob to Tyrants in Therapy, performance artists are moving from avant-garde spaces to nightclubs, where there are more drinkers and a lot less rejection (December 7, 2000).
- Thanks for finding that source. The one paragraph mentioning the Tyrants in that article, however, still doesn't stand out as significant coverage to me. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 07:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Dillon Riddell[edit]

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

Not sufficiently notable person. Was educated in journalism, held public-facing jobs with a public broadcaster, then got a communications job with a semi-private utility company. This is a career path that many current government flaks have, and a career path that many current working journalists will have. (e.g. they go from being a visible person on the local news, to being a "Public relations officer" for a particular local thing or agency).

In total the article has only one reference, a dead link, which was a 2007 press release, against the rules for notability in the first place. (promotional)

Article contains a lot of puffery and WP:PEACOCK peacock terms (being the "first", "youngest", "supervising senior" person with an otherwise ordinary job. Apparently he worked as journalists do, and also signed more-junior persons' performance evaluations? In an industry rife with student interns and volunteeer labour, this is not remarkable.

Lead paragraph has this subject's name as "Hrishikesh Raul" and recategorized in Category:Indian Engineers since February 16 2017. Possible vandalism not noticed for 6 months precisely because of the foregoing.

Individual continues to hold a non-notable, non-public-facing job -- Director of Communications for a regional utility company, not being a celebrated person in an unbiased journalism/host/storytelling role. Scope of job, even if notable, is provincial at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.71.150 (talk • contribs) 18:14, June 28, 2017 (UTC)

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of above IP editor--above text is copied from article talk page. Article had been hijacked by the above-noted Hrishikesh Raul as that account's sole edit. I have reverted the article to the pre-hijack version except for the retention of the AfD tag--intervening edits had more to do with repairing inconsistencies caused by the vandalism rather than fixing the vandalism itself. I offer no further opinion on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 18:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. The notability claims here — winning a Gemini and a Murrow — are not supported by reliable sources, and for that matter this isn't even how the Gemini/CSAs work: Best Newscast goes to the show, not to its producer, which means that claim is running afoul of WP:NOTINHERITED as written. He'd technically have a valid notability claim if he could be shown to pass WP:GNG for his work in journalism, but nothing here grants him any sort of exemption from having to be the subject of reliable source coverage about him. And the fact that the "Hrishikesh Raul" vandalism went completely undetected for almost an entire year says something about how much visibility the guy actually has, to boot. As so often happens with journalists, this whole thing reads an awful lot like something that was probably copy-pasted from an "our staff" bio on the website of his present or former employer without any discernible attempt to actually make it read or source like an encyclopedia article instead of a PR blurb — and that's not the type of article that anybody gets to keep on here regardless of whether they have a valid notability claim or not. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Osem App[edit]

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

Non-notable app without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, fails WP:GNG, WP:NSOFTWARE. Rentier (talk) 07:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability. Only ref provided is non-English language MYNEWSHUB.CC - unclear if this is RS. One source is typically insufficient to establish notability, a search turned up no further WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 22:18, 27 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 06:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Z. Blazevich[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This closed as no consensus in the 2013 AfD with one keep and one delete. I found no significant coverage for this person and none were presented in the first AfD. SL93 (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom and there is a lack of GNG to justify an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject has been covered a fair bit by multiple reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.75.172 (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sources do not establish notability; Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 28 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 06:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Fighters[edit]

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

Unremarkable film. KDS4444 (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was recreated by the editor at Zombie Fighters (Thai film). SL93 (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has received plenty of news coverage,[42] not least for its being universally panned as one of the worst movies ever. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:03, 30 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 06:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Sanzone[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The sources, both those included in the article and those revealed by a WP:BEFORE search are either routine listings or press releases (or rehashes of press releases). Also WP:NOTCV. Rentier (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an advertorial page on an unremarkable executive. The only sources I see are the subject commenting on the financial performance of the firm that he's the CEO of. That's not sufficient for establishing his independent notability. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 29 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 Speedy delete . (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 09:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fadel Soliman[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer and public speaker, formatted like a résumé rather than an encyclopedia and referenced entirely to primary sources and YouTube videos and a user-generated "citizen journalism" site, with only one reference that's even maybe a reliable source. So there simply isn't enough valid sourcing here to clear WP:GNG, and nothing stated in the article body entitles him to a free presumption of notability in the absence of enough valid sourcing to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 04:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous promotion. Has all appearance of being a fan page or an autobiography, with content such as:

"Popularity: Hundreds of Arabic and English videos by Fadel Soliman can be found on YouTube where there are excerpts from his appearances on TV channels, as well as speeches delivered in the Middle East and in the West.[14]" [link to youtube channel]

I've requested a speedy deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Khase[edit]

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

Probable hoax. The only reference is to a Youtube video and fails WP:GNG. Most probably belongs to the category of disinformation spread by local news agencies as part of click-bait journalism. Stars falling is anyway unencyclopedic enough to warrant a delete. Jupitus Smart 06:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pilot (Supernatural). Given that Character is not mentioned in Characters of Supernatural. Any relevant content can be merged from history, Sandstein 06:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Constance Welch[edit]

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

The article is about a character who appears in just one episode of a TV series, that in no way meets notability guidelines. Article just contains plot-only information, trivia, and in-universe details. The only real world information is a bit about casting. There's no reason this information just can't be put into Supernatural (season 1) or Characters of Supernatural. Again, this is a character who appears in one episode; it's not a notable recurring or main character from the series. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Characters of Supernatural per nom.PohranicniStraze (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pilot (Supernatural). There's far too much to merge everything, and none of it is sourced. The important details are all in the article on the episode. (If someone wants to do a selective merge to Characters of Supernatural, just a small section, that would be ok too.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Characters of Supernatural as per nom, not notable character. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pilot (Supernatural) seems more appropriate as she is a one-time character that is already covered in the article on the relevant episode. I do not see the value of adding a section about her in the characters list when she is extremely minor and a merge into the list would primarily be repeated information already found in the pilot article. I argue that the information on her should be contained in the article on the relevant episode. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I oppose a redirect; it's entirely possible that there's a real notable person by this name. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not grounds for deletion without a redirect, and doesn't appear to accord with any policy. Should we not have redirects for any fictional character on the basis that there might be a real person with the same name? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you oppose a redirect? That sort of comment (or non-comment) isn't much help. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agreed with the views of the nomination and felt it was appropriate to delete, but having said that, I don't have any objections to a redirect instead. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Despite two relists no discussion of the sources mentioned by Lizard the Wizard happened. Just saying WP:TOOSOON without discussing whether the article currently meets WP:BASIC or WP:GNG is not sufficient. That the article might be recreated anyway is not a valid reason for deletion if he is already notable now. So Why 12:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Rasmussen[edit]

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

Rasmussen is not signing with Tampa Bay, so we can't merge this to Tampa Bay Rays minor league players. There are some sources (like this), but I don't think there are enough for WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still at college baseball level, there are very few notable college baseball players, and he has nothing to suggest he is one of the few.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is pitching a perfect game not sufficient? Especially when considered with everything else, such as being the ace on a team that won 60+ games and only lost 6 and being drafted in the first round. Is college baseball still not at that level of notability? Lizard (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lizard the Wizard: The specific guideline here is WP:NCOLLATH. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG in my opinion. Gained national media attention for pitching a perfect game,[43][44][45] national media attention for being drafted in the first round of the draft,[46] and national media attention for the fact that he won't sign with the Rays.[47] Lizard (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete WP:TOOSOON. The page will most likely be re-created if he is drafted (and signs a pro contract) next year. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dagwoods Sandwichs et Salades[edit]

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

Not a notable restaurant chain. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is, for the record, the same topic as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagwoods — however, that discussion is eight years old, so I wouldn't speedy this on that basis, and just wanted to make sure people are aware that we've been down this road before. That said, this article is still not making a stronger claim of notability, or showing more solid sourcing — restaurant chains are not granted an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist, but must be reliably sourced well enough to clear WP:CORPDEPTH. There's just not enough meat (pun intended) here for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- barely a directory listing, with no opportunity for improvement, per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I would think after 8 years it may have more press (since the last deletion), but unfortunately has nothing that would help show notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CNMall41 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 30 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. Sandstein 06:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sofiia Lyskun[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NATHLETE Chris Troutman (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. European Championships medalist is notable --Ivasykus (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. European Championships medalist. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 13:57, 28 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 06:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Weddings Magazine[edit]

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

I'm fairly sure I can't find enough in the way of independent reliable sources to support notability. Nearly everything I see in the way of third-party sources consists of the source's publisher crowing about having been featured in the magazine. Largoplazo (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article reads more like a puff piece.TH1980 (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without redirect. Mentioning it in Overflow (disambiguation) is entirely possible though and seems like a good idea. So Why 12:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overflow (Planetshakers album)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This is an album by a prolific Christian music ensemble, but which appears not to have attracted the level of coverage required by NMUSIC's criteria in and of itself. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any coverage to show that this passes either WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Planetshakers as {{R from album}}. f e minist 09:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above; not redirect as the term is a disambiguator not likely to be typed in the search box, though I wouldn't object to a mention in Overflow (disambiguation) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:35, 30 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) 20:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Mendocino[edit]

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

Ineligible for PROD, was PROD'd in 2007 for lack of notability and undeleted shortly after a request from a user who advised "Camp Mendocino belongs to a non profit organization, is very traditional, and has existed since the 1930s."

While that all may be very nice it's been 10 years and still no sources have been added, and I couldn't find any of my own. The topic fails GNG and should be deleted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has had a decade to be brought up to notability standards, but since it has not, it can go.TH1980 (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is defined outside of Wikipedia, so notability does not change by editing an article. Unscintillating (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:DEL7 with WP:IAR. An 85-year-old Boy Scout camp sounds like a topic of enduring interest, but without any reliably sourced statements, it requires a complete re-write. As for the IAR, AfD is not clean-up. Unscintillating (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Nothing to indicate it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.amazon.co.jp/%E5%AE%87%E5%AE%99-%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC-%E4%B8%96%E7%94%B0%E8%B0%B7-%E3%83%95%E3%82%A3%E3%83%83%E3%82%B7%E3%83%A5%E3%83%9E%E3%83%B3%E3%82%BA/dp/B00005FJU8/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1500011594&sr=1-1&keywords=uchu+nippon+setagaya

[2] ttps://www.amazon.co.jp/%E5%AE%87%E5%AE%99-%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC-%E4%B8%96%E7%94%B0%E8%B0%B7-%E3%83%95%E3%82%A3%E3%83%83%E3%82%B7%E3%83%A5%E3%83%9E%E3%83%B3%E3%82%BA/dp/B01HOWHN9C/ref=sr_1_3?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1500011594&sr=1-3&keywords=uchu+nippon+setagaya

[1]

[2]