Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 July	24 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bigmama Didn't Shop At Woolworth's[edit]

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

After I cleared out the promotional inline references, we're left with one good reference, the rest being to either where to buy the book or mere listings, not seeming to meet notability guidelines. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Not that it's terribly relevant, but one ref was: <ref>Every White person in America should read this book! Sunny Nash writes the story of her childhood without preaching or ranting but she made me realize for the first time just how much skin color changes how one experiences the world. When she was just three years old her grandmother taught her how to read 'colored' and 'white only' because that was a survival skill just as important as 'Don't get in a car with strangers.' The book is remarkable. I was taught, and I teach, that skin color doesn't matter anymore than hair color. But, if your skin color is brown, it matters a great deal to a great number of people. I needed to learn that, Sunny Nash is a great teacher. By Robin ([email protected]) on October 8, 1998</ref>

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOKS, reviews by Library Journal, School Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, The Western Journal of Black Studies, Los Angeles Times, have added these to the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good references added, including LA Times and lengthy article in Western Journal of Black Studies (published by Washington State University), as well as other less prestigious reviews. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOKS. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current version of the article, as improved by Coolabahapple and other editors, clearly satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but not so fast... Library Journal, School Library Journal (YA lit), and even to some extent Publishers Weekly are trade publications for librarians. Their reviews are short (51-250 words), largely indiscriminate (they help librarians determine which books to purchase, not just the most important ones), and largely unhelpful for purposes of building an encyclopedia article that does justice to the topic (the general notability guideline). (I have the 1997 print Book Review Index in front of me. It only lists those three trade publications and no other periodicals, indicating a minor release.) This said, the reviews from Mississippi Quarterly, The Western Journal of Black Studies [1], and the Los Angeles Times are together sufficient as a baseline. And if not, we should be looking for a merge target rather than outright deletion. czar 21:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, yep pw, lj, and slj are "tradies", but nbook and gng do not specifically preclude trade reviews/journals aimed at libraries/librarians, nor do they preclude reviews from scientific journals on science books, military journals reviewing military history books, art journals reviewing artists and their works, as long as they are independent of the author and not too "niche" they are useable, of course with a review or two from non-trade publications notability with a book like this one is pretty clear. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No issue with journals in niche fields, but a book trade journal designed to cover books in volume isn't good evidence of a book's notability. That's why the outside, lengthier treatments are needed to actually cover the book in reasonable depth, or there wouldn't be enough content to write an article. I commented not because this specific book's case isn't clear but for the precedent in future discussions. czar 04:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Consensus is clear, and policy-based. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angele Yapoudjian[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. A google search in English returns a grant total of 2 hits [2], both to Wikipedia. A google search in Armenian returns a grant total of 7 hits [3], 6 of which are to Wikipedia. The only source cited in the article is to the memoirs by the subject's husband, possibly self-published and certainly not an independent source. Nsk92 (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Nsk92 (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability of this worthy teacher. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I have added additional sources from the Abaka (weekly) newspaper to provide credible evidence. Rafsta61 (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources that you added [4] and [5] contain one-word mentions of her in the stories about her husband. That is not sufficient to establish notability required by WP:GNG or WP:BIO. For that you'd need to find independent published sources, providing specific in-depth coverage of Angele Yapoudjian herself. Nsk92 (talk)

Delete nothing to show she is at all a notable teacher.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 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 Redirect to Croatia–Serbia_border_dispute#Liberland_and_other_claims DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Ongal[edit]

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

Non notable "micronation". No residents. "lends (sic) are a previous Nature park and no inhabitеd forest, there are no permanent residents, the Principality have no population on the ground and any other form of government type or elections are impossible." Even a micronation must have residents. See Montevideo Convention. No recognition. Very limited media coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Even by micronation standards, this doesn't qualify. John Nagle (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Redirect. I was involved in trimming down the article back in 2015 (the old cruft has made it back in since), and then in the consensus decision to redirect. Options for the redirect are Terra nullius and Croatia–Serbia border dispute. I'd suggest the latter, as it's a good article, and it's where the other non-notable micronation, Enclava, now redirects to (having previously been pointed to the Terra nullius article section[6]). It's where ~~Kekistan and~~ Autia will go, if they go anywhere. Bromley86 (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection or merging to Croatia–Serbia_border_dispute#Liberland_and_other_claims seems reasonable. John Nagle (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I wouldn't like to see more than a cursory mention over there (such as we already have) myself. This is what the Ongal article looked like before its proponents reverted to a pre-review version (i.e. pretty thin, once you take out the background already in the Croatia-Serbia border dispute article). It had previously been a redirect for nearly a year.[7] Bromley86 (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There seem to be more than a few wild claims on that territory. I think we should merge them all into a List of micronations claiming Croatia–Serbia terra nullius (feel free to suggest a better title). Daß Wölf 19:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Croatia–Serbia_border_dispute#Liberland_and_other_claims. No such user (talk) 06:48, 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) 21:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aarti the Unknown Love Story[edit]

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

Upcoming film with no sources whatsoever except a couple of brief press releases about the release of the movie poster. The creator has also created articles about the actors, the director/producer, and the person whose life the film is based on; these have been speedily deleted (and recreated in draft form), with one exeption that is currently in AfD.

There are many, many movies released every year that do not meet WP:NFILM, and so far this film is among their number. If, after its release, it becomes notable, somebody who is not affiliated with it will probably write an article about it. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and can't include articles on the off-chance that the subject might become notable. bonadea contributions talk 21:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - no guarantee that this upcoming film will be notable Spiderone 16:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as being TOO SOON and lacking coverage. I'd be okay if it be returned as a draft to its author... until we have confirmation of filming AND more coverage to meet WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not yet pass WP:NFILM. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 04:19, 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 WP:SNOW keep [8]. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 01:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbs (cat)[edit]

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

This article was created initially to note the novelty of a small town electing a cat as its mayor. Further developments have demonstrated that cat was never actually never selected as the town's mayor by any process, electoral or otherwise. It is apparently just a term of endearment extended by the citizenry. It's difficult to find the proper reason for deletion, as this cat is so incredibly unworthy of an article. One editor had suggested WP:1E, but even this suggests Stubbs had a role in one event (the election?) when it fact he had a role in zero events. The totality of the story is that some townfolks in a small outpost convinced some suckers from out of town that they had elected the cat as mayor in a write-in vote. We would not have an article on the election (as it did not occur), and we surely would not have an article on the town suckering a UPI writer (who actually preceded an account of the election with "As the story goes'). Even if the election story was true, the election itself would be the article. But as the election did not occur, there is nothing remotely of encyclopedic value here. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it's a bit of a gag story, but there's enough coverage out there from over the years that I think it meets wp:GNG. He got a relatively decent amount of coverage over the years simply because hehe cat mayor, but it isn't local - CNN, Time, and Fox all have articles about him. I could buy WP:1E if it was just that brief spurt, but he got headlines in 2013 when he was attacked by a dog - NBC, CBS, Washington Times, and CNN all featured him. Then again in 2014 there was coverage when he "attempted" to run for US Senate. So yeah, I'd say he crossed the bar for notability. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I object because these are all "...and finally tonight" stories predicated on allowing the (heretofore) reliable sources to reiterate a dumb gag, whose humor only persists with its veracity (i.e. "LOL, a town elected a cat mayor! How hilarious!" "Actually they didn't; he's not the mayor at all." "Oh."). A person coming across this article would be spellbound trying to understanding what exactly this cat did. I think it's fine that we created the article when an RS reported it, but once it became clear that the story was untrue, the notability disappears. Otherwise the first line should be "Stubbs was a cat who was the subject of a silly lie foolishly exacerbated by lazy editors." GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:1E, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:AREYOUKIDDINGME. I'm sorry but I don't care how broadly you construe our inclusion guidelines. This is a joke and is not a suitable subject for anything that wants to credibly call itself an encyclopedia except maybe on April Fools Day. The fact that some in the media played along with it for laughs is neither here nor there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. The fact that some in the media played along with it for laughs is really all the keep !voters have going for them to justify their arguments. I witnessed this exact same bit of Kool-Aid drinking in the last AFD I commented on, where folks evidently believe that a reliable source is determined solely by which website you found the particular source at. I address that point in greater detail below. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Whether or not it's a gag, the cat's notability has been proven via being discussed by a number of major publications over a number of years. As far as I'm concerned, this is a pretty cut-and-dry case. -- Kicking222 (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:BIO, "The article title should define what the article is about. If there is enough valid content to fill an article about a person, then that person's name (such as "John Doe" or "Jane Doe") would be an appropriate title. If, however, there is only enough information about one notable event related to the person, then the article should be titled specifically about that event, such as Steve Bartman incident." Pretty clear cut. Talkeetna, Alaska has everything we need to know about Stubbs.GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it's undue weight in that article in its present state. Look through prior discussions and you'll see that Stubbs is deemed notable because Stubbs is the subject of coverage during Wikipedia's lifetime. Stubbs is subordinate to Nagley's Store. Horace Willard Nagley, both Senior and Junior, were the subject of coverage that spans a combined total of around 80 or 90 years. Someone attempted to claim that neither Nagley could be considered notable, which I can only assume is due to the fact that the vast majority of this coverage occurred during the early to middle 20th century. Because this is after the cutoff date for expiration of copyright, and before the rise of the web and Wikipedia in particular, a Google search will only mislead anyone attempting to gauge the notability of a topic from those eras. That it's not a matter of Google-fueled systemic bias, but rather a black-and-white indication of notability or non-notability, is a rather common POV around here, and a self-serving one to boot. We're already too much of a compendium of fleeting trending topics from the past X number of years. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The references indicate that GNG notability is met. I am not a cat person and don't live in Alaska and I know about this cat.--Rpclod (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is very well sourced and does in fact claim notability. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep - Possibly related to his recent death. We don't delete articles when human mayors die, so why delete this one? If the veracity is a problem, add a section on it.--Auric talk 23:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, to repeat the point, he is NOT the mayor of anything, even as a gag. The gag was that locals SAID that he was the mayor. This cat's notability is defined by his presence in RS, not by anything that got him there. The thing that got him there was either confusion, a lie, or a wink-and-a-nod. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability has been plenty well established over the years, I'd say. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 23:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- For what is the cat notable? Presence in RS does not constitute notability in and of itself; it is proof of the underlying source of notability. Unless the article is about the hoax, there exists no story to establish notability for. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a textbook example of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT - the nominator admits as much, saying "it's difficult to find the proper reason to delete as this cat is so unworthy of an article." Notability is established by significant coverage in reliable sources, and as Nohomersryan has demonstrated, it easily passes WP:GNG. And GreatCaesarsGhost, it doesn't help your case to badger every keep !voter. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not badgering the voters; I'm debating the editors. I'm new here and I'm working on establishing my sea legs by engaging in debate based on a careful reading of the relevant policy. I fully expect to get smacked down by the vets. What I don't expect is them sticking to one policy while ignoring all the others that serve to regulate it. WP:GNG is not the end of the story. There's WP:1E, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTSTUPID, and the one ring to rule them all, WP:IAR. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pawnkingthree: Obviously, you don't spend much time over at RFA. The amount of hectoring that occurs there towards those who don't express the "right" opinions makes this look like child's play. It's so bad, it leads one to believe that the fix is in and that we only have RFAs for the sake of appearing that there's any sort of transparency going on. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hallelujah! Strong delete – I'm the honorary Archbishop of Canterbury and the love child of Carmen Miranda and Charles Nelson Reilly, as well as the reincarnation of Rahsaan Roland Kirk. Of course, such claims have as much basis in fact as most of the "reliably sourced" nonsense found either in the article or in the sources. Anyone who would argue to keep this garbage is really saying that our ultimate purpose is to provide clickbait to a cherry-picked list of other websites, and that the agenda of said cherry-picked websites automatically becomes our agenda. I would also invoke WP:NOTNEWS, but we've obviously become so much of a news site of late that we have editors mocking fellow editors for raising such concerns ("Of course we're a bloody newspaper"). Furthermore, this sends the message that I'm wasting my time making positive contributions to the encyclopedia when I could be engineering publicity stunts like this to game the media and hence the encyclopedia, seeing as how the inclusion bar is so low.

Upon noticing the increase in the juvenility factor coincidental with the cat's death that was coming across my watchlist, I started a discussion elsewhere about the reliability of the sources in this case, but didn't finish it before I had to leave for church. Coming back and subsequently noticing this discussion, I started over, because this venue is far more appropriate for that discussion. I won't have time to pour over everything right this moment, but I did click on the very first source, from KTUU. Here's one passage that has so many holes, one could drive the Space Shuttle through it:

As the story goes, 15 years ago several of the town residents didn't like the candidates who were running for mayor of Talkeetna, so as a joke, they encouraged enough people to elect Stubbs the cat as a write-in candidate, and he actually won.

Fortunately and thankfully, an IP left a very important clue on the article's talk page that our so-called professional and "reliable" journalists failed to notice, what with their awesome fact-checking skills and all. And this particular story was written by someone who actually lives in Alaska and has easy access to the information detailed below? Amazing...

To mirror another comment, "As the story goes" should have been your first clue that something's rotten in Denmark, or however that expression goes. An apocryphal story suddenly becomes a reliable source merely on account of who publishes it? Again, amazing...
"15 years ago". Lessee: KTUU published this story in 2012. 2012 minus 15 is 1997. The Alaska Division of Elections conducts elections for organizing or dissolving municipalities in Alaska. According to the relevant page on their website (see here), there was no such election in 1997, as the story strongly implies multiple times. However, there was an election in 2002. I would say that five years is quite a gap inasfar as factual accuracy is concerned. Can you tell me what you were doing five years ago today?
In the famous words of Ron Popeil, "But wait, there's more!". Clicking on the page containing the election results disproves much of the rest of the statement. "...several of the town residents didn't like the candidates who were running for mayor of Talkeetna, so as a joke, they encouraged enough people to elect Stubbs the cat as a write-in candidate, and he actually won". There are several falsehoods implied or stated here. There was a mayoral election as the IP claimed, but it may not be clear to political neophytes that the legality of that election was contingent on the passage of Proposition One. As that question failed, it rendered the rest of the results null and void. Article X, § 2 of the state constitution makes it clear that as Talkeetna is not a borough or a city, it is not a legally incorporated municipality and therefore has no legal authority to declare a mayor, despite the source implying otherwise. One would believe from this story that Talkeetna has always had a mayor and in this instance did away with the position in favor of an "honorary" mayor. Most importantly, the bulk of that statement is rendered false not only by the failure of the incorporation question, but by the results of the mayoral election which show that 392 votes were cast in the election for mayor, with 298 going to the two (presumably human) candidates on the ballot, 46 going to write-ins and 48 ballots left blank.

I'll try and go through the rest of the sources when I have a chance, but I have a strong suspicion that I will only encounter more of the same. Encouraging people to blindly parrot particular sources because you've deemed them "reliable", even when very little actual reliability is evident, is a slippery slope if I've ever seen one. This is entirely too similar to the media herds showing up down the road in Wasilla in August and September 2008. Lots of concern for going through the motions and producing by-the-numbers journalistic content, very little concern for facts or portraying the community to their audiences in a proper light. The reversal of long-standing consensus on our coverage of the subtopic of mayors of Wasilla was the result of one editor's crusade based on his personal impressions of what is and isn't notable, aided by the few editors who bothered to show up at the AFDs to back him. Armed with such "overwhelming consensus", he proceeded to eradicate any factual information about mayors of Wasilla, increasing the amount of undue weight shown towards Sarah Palin and also leaving in place all the empty content about Levi Johnston's "mayoral candidacy". There are many parallels to this situation. Johnston never filed formal candidacy paperwork and his "campaign" was almost entirely based on issuing press releases, expecting that his celebrity was all he needed to get media coverage. Even Timmy from South Park could figure out that this "reliable" coverage was barely removed from those press releases, and that none of those outlets followed up on the story, such as at anytime close to election day where actual facts about his candidacy could be more easily had. The Wikipedia editor responsible for all this cherry-picked tabloid sources in a BLP and then defended that practice at BLPN. Obviously, the community thought this was A-OK. We even had one person come to the talk page and make comments to the effect of "We all know that Johnston really didn't run for mayor. Why don't you just let these editors have their fun?". I suppose you're going to tell me that we're really not trying to kill off the encyclopedia by taking stances like this? Uh huh, sure... RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Ok, you've disproven the fact that the cat was "mayor". But how does it relate to WP:GNG? It's not like the article doesn't mention the fact that some people think it's nothing but a stunt (admittedly it's a brief mention, but the article is pretty short anyway and could be expanded regardless). Nohomersryan (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nohomersryan: You ask how this relates to notability? As was mentioned previously, notability has to do with significant coverage in reliable sources. This has been met in this case, at least superficially. The reason I say "at least superficially" is that there's another piece of the puzzle that most everyone appears to be conveniently avoiding. Namely, what is or isn't a reliable source does not strictly boil down to which website published the source in question. There's also the matter of the existence of a fact-checking process. As I point out in some detail above, I perused one source and found it to be absolutely riddled with factual errors, thanks to the hint left by the IP on the talk page. WP:V does not mean that you pick one or more sources out of thin air and attempt to con everyone into believing that those sources equal all that needs to be said on a particular matter, and that contradictory information provided by sources which are credible but perhaps don't precisely fit the definition of tertiary sources can be categorically dismissed for that reason. That makes us out to be another media outlet which tries to copy every other media outlet in the hunt for a "good story", instead of a credible, factually accurate information resource. I went and performed some rather simple fact checking that this so-called professional journalist didn't bother with. The Division of Elections office in Anchorage is less than a mile from the KTUU studios. It wouldn't have been burdensome in the least for him or his editor to pay the office a visit and perform that fact-checking, or even staying put in their offices and phoning or e-mailing the elections office for the same information. Why wasn't this fact checking done? It's obvious to me that the facts would get in the way of a "good story", but perhaps someone has a better theory. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the enduring relevance? How does this pass NOTNEWS or the 10YT? How does this pass INDISCRIMINATE? Just because something gets news coverage does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. In fact most things that get in the news, don't. News coverage, which lets be blunt here, is the sole basis for any claim to notability, is not an automatic guarantee of meeting our criteria. In this instance it almost certainly fails our criteria based on the exceptions noted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS and 10YT are both arguments related to recentism, which I would say don't apply here as there's been coverage stretching over several years and the article has existed for 5 years now (and it's not particularly a recent event since the cat was "honorary mayor" since 1997). Which part of WP:INDISCRIMINATE do you think applies to this article? The article isn't a work, so it can't be "Summary-only descriptions of works", obviously this isn't a song either, I don't see any "unexplained statistics" and obviously a cat cannot have "exhaustive logs of software updates". Nohomersryan (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"...the cat was 'honorary mayor' since 1997". By whose account? You mean the same people responsible for this publicity stunt in the first place? I've already asserted their lack of credibility and the lack of fact checking evident in the one source I perused. Obviously, since Talkeetna is not an incorporated community, they have as much legal authority to conduct local elections as they do to declare a position of mayor, namely zero. The only local election which would have occurred was the one conducted by the state on the matter of incorporation. As I pointed out, this election occurred in 2002, not 1997. Once again, you're attempting to assert that we're obligated to blindly parrot journalists even when it's blatantly obvious that no fact checking occurred? That's conforming to a controlled narrative, not to reliable sources. There's nothing "reliable" whatsoever in a piece where there's no fact checking, regardless of who wrote or "edited" it. From the tone of this discussion, it sounds to me like the other sources have the exact same problems, but I won't have time tonight to look over them. As for the WP:INDISCRIMINATE argument, perhaps they meant WP:TRIVIA. The passage about afternoon catnip in a wine glass is nothing but trivia. I'm sure I could find other examples if I bothered. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep - If wikipedia can't have a sense of humor please....Masterknighted (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability clearly established by RS. Lost on Belmont ^3200N_1000W (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stubbs honorary term as mayor has been well recorded and obituaries have been produced and it is good to have articles based on verifiable sources that are lighter in tone. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From all of the news coverage, the notability is definitely there. Isseubnida (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only of you ignore 1E, INDISCRIMINATE, NOTNEWS, enduring relevance and the 10YT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily a notable cat. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 02:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a Mayor better than the POTUS, surely notable .--Ste moc 05:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried really hard to make the obvious joke here, but it just didn't grab me. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why should it not be possible to find neutral information here on a cat that is on the front page of media all over the World ? --Pugilist (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable hoax (c.f. Pope Joan) and a potential to be a useful article pointing out the facts, which is what Wikipedia is here for. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wall Street Journal and Time Magazine had articles about Stubbs the cat; the article has reliable sources. Thank you-RFD (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree the cat has had reliable coverage and has gained notability. This isn't even a real hoax; perhaps a misleading. Please. We need a bit of human interest articles on Wikipedia and unlike some cat articles, this is well sourced (Wall Street Journal how could one argue against this?) and UPI. Fylbecatulous talk 12:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the topic passes WP:GNG and has received significant coverage in reliable sources, including national-level news coverage in the United States. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the merits, owing to obvious notability and depth of coverage, much of it contemporaneous and predating the subject's death. I'm loathe to bring up any point that might trigger WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the Delete arguments (and the nominator's rationale) remind me of His Royal Highness Norton I, Emperor of the United States. It doesn't matter one bit that Norton was emperor of nothing - he was noted as such, with varying levels of seriousness. In this case, it doesn't matter whether the cat was elected as mayor of anything - what matters is that he was noted as such in reliable sources. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable cat in the sense that it has been covered extensively by news media. The cat's actual role may have been embellished, but in that case the Wikipedia article can serve to present the facts and correct those misconceptions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest Speedy Close per WP:SNOW. I don't agree with the consensus, and thus will not be striking my !vote. However, consensus is clear beyond any reasonable doubt. It's time to close this and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -Roxy the Mayor. bark 16:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 128.227.155.88 (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)— 128.227.155.88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

To Roxy the dog and the IP – see WP:JUSTAVOTE. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To Pawnkingthree see WP:SNOW -Roxy the dog. bark 18:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, a bigger issue would be that the IP has never edited before ever. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can safely assume that the outcome of this AfD is not going to hinge on the one and only single word edit from an IP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above keep votes showing that notability has been established. ZettaComposer (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ("speedy"), clearly press coverage signifies notability -- "speedy" because the subject is currently undergoing significant international coverage, and the tag should be removed due to expected increase in traffic (albeit ephemeral). — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1C:247F:9E77:82FF (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets GNG and notability established by RS. How many individual animals' deaths are featured in major news outlets like The Guardian, CNN, or Newsweek? Moreover, the cat was notable prior to death as he was featured in the Wall Street Journal, Business Insider, CNN and others back in 2013. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To meet the threshold of notability, the nomination seems not only to require Stubbs to have been actually elected as a mayor, but apparently also to have performed mayoral duties. That's a fairly tall order. GregorB (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is, of course, nonsense as notability is not necessarily determined by role or actions. Notability is determined by significant coverage by independent reliable sources over time. That is clearly demonstrated here. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; even if it is a hoax or gimmick, it is undeniably notable. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1C:247F:9E77:82FF (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: See my previous comments about Kool-Aid drinking. Myself and others are pointing out in some detail that the claims of notability found in the sources are rooted in certain "facts", despite abundant evidence that those "facts" were made up out of thin air by the interviewee(s) and taken at face value by so-called professional journalists, that no actual fact checking took place, and that it was a piece of cake to verify that the interviewee's claims amount of one steaming pile. Yet most everyone in this discussion has the gall to keep calling them "reliable sources". WHY??? Some other famous words come to mind, namely those of Barack Obama: "They’re trying to bamboozle you. Don’t let people turn you around because they’re just making stuff up. That’s what they do. They try to bamboozle you, hoodwink you". Alex Jones is "fake news" but this isn't? And here I thought that the expression "is that guy kidding or what?" only referred to Frank Zappa's famous diatribe about Peter Frampton ("These people are fucked up. They are very fucked up."). And I haven't even addressed whether the claims of the keep voters of "significant coverage" are really a matter of the same few stories and same few non-facts being propagated endlessly from one website to the next, a common scam around AFD. This leads to another question I don't expect anyone to answer. How do you suppose that folks will continue to come to this website and contribute when we're sending such a clear message that our only purpose here is to be automatons parroting the agendas of news editors? I'm not a teenager or twentysomething living in mommy's basement, I'm 50 years old and have been working for a living more or less continuously since 1983. As such, doing someone else's bidding for them is the sort of work I expect to be paid for. If I'm coming here as a volunteer, I expect to use my experience and judgement to guide content and hope that those will be respected by fellow editors. Telling me that we're here strictly to parrot information published by a cherry-picked list of other websites, at face value, without regard for its factual accuracy, really tells me that you don't respect that experience and judgement. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Ad Orientem I don't have an opinion on the actual article, but there is clearly consensus to keep. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 00:44, 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. WP:SNOW, WP:IAR - there is no possible chance somebody is going to salvage this article, so even though I participated in the debate and declined the original CSD A7, I'm calling this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Noida FC[edit]

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

Apparently has a claim of significance (I don't see it?) but a totally unremarkable, non-notable football club. I can find no coverage and no indication it meets any part of WP:NFOOTY. Worth noting the only sources I can find are two photos, facebook and wikimirrors. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to pass either NORG or the GNG. I cannot find any indication of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is a small neighbourhood football club (likely made up of some friends). My friends had formed a similar club and named it after our locality. It is not a professional club which takes part in any national football league games in India.--DreamLinker (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not one trace of notability that I can find. I tried to find something to make this worth a redirect: I searched in other languages and tried a reverse image search (not sure if it worked correctly though). Nothing. Adam9007 (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Couldn't find a thing Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:02, 24 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 - with no reliable coverage (citations in article are nothing more than a facebook page and links to a couple of pictures) article certainly fails WP:NORG & the WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:18, 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. It looks like if anything the race may be notable; if the material of this article is needed for that please ask at WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Crow (American Politician)[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability guidelines for politicians, which specifically state "Just being an elected local official,or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Other than running for office there doesn't seem to be another claim to notability(such as his legal or military careers). It almost reads as a bio in campaign literature.

Having examined the sources, they consist of affiliated websites(his lawfirm and campaign websites), announcements of his campaign, and name-drops in larger articles about Democratic congressional candidates in general without in depth coverage. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unexceptional military, professional and political career. A search turned up a couple of everyday political campaign reports (i.e. try to start an argument to get your name in the papers); but no truly independent in-depth coverage. Fails WP:NBIO including WP:NPOL. Narky Blert (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've got a dog in this fight, and don't want to pretend otherwise. I live in the district and am impacted by this race and have been volunteering for one of Jason's opponents -- Levi Tillemann. That said, I don't think it is helpful to the community to delete a page on a frontrunner for a congressional race that was one of the most expensive in the country in 2016. He has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject from both local and national sources. People are trying to learn about the guy. He also definitely seems to pass the bar on being a major local political figures who have received significant press coverage WP:POLITICIANS. to Right now, there's no neutral and trusted broker for information on him. Clearly, I agree that merely being a candidate doesn't guarantee notability, but I think that were he NOT a candidate and had a similar level of coverage in reliable sources, we wouldn't be hesitating to post this. Fully understand that my opinion here will be discounted because of my connection, but I sincerely don't see how deleting the page improves the community Corbantd (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Corbantd: Please offer the sources that you claim have the significant coverage of Jason Crow, as well as any sources claiming he is a "frontrunner"; they aren't in the article currently. Wikipedia is not for a promotional purpose like helping people "trying to learn about the guy"; he must be notable per notability guidelines and IMO does not appear to be currently. He isn't notable as a candidate(if he wins then he would merit an article as a member of Congress) per WP:POLITICIAN nor does he seem to be per the general biography guidelines. Other than his lawfirm's website(which is not an independent source) there is no information about how he is notable as an attorney or as a member of the military. Again, please offer any sources you have that aren't in the article currently, if they exist. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot I disagree with how you've read the 'promotional purposes' rule. Of course this shouldn't be about advocacy, propaganda, marketing, scandal mongering, self-promotion, etc -- but it absolutely IS for people trying to learn noteworthy and verifiable information about notable public figures. ~~I agree that the tone in the current piece might feel promotional, but that's a result of how it's written, not the fact that the guy isn't notable.~~ The article looks like it was updated to provide a more balanced and complete picture of Crow and his career. Regardless, Crow was called the front runner by ColoradoPolitics [9] "Crow is emerging as the frontrunner in the race" and The Hill [10] "Jason Crow, a Denver-area lawyer and veteran who has emerged as the clear front-runner," which are the most influential political newspapers in Colorado and in the Country respectively. There have been at least 5 dedicated profiles to him covering every prominent local paper and he's been name dropped in Rolling Stone, Politico, The Hill and then a bunch of smaller outlets. Corbantd (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles about candidates just because a source predicts that they're the front-runner — lots of people have been perceived as the front runner in an election that they ultimately lost (Hillary Clinton would be sitting in the White House right now if the front-runner always won), who's the front runner can change over the course of the campaign (Tom Mulcair would be Prime Minister of Canada right now if the front-runner at the start of an election campaign always stayed the front-runner right through to election day), and different sources can come to different reads on who is or isn't the front-runner (see the whole "unskewing" thing in 2012, where some sources were predicting a more Romney-friendly voter turnout model than others were.) And getting namedropped in sources doesn't assist notability either — if he were the subject of coverage in Politico, Rolling Stone or The Hill, then there might be a case that he was beginning to clear GNG, but a person doesn't clear notability standards just because those sources namecheck his existence within coverage of other things. Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the Hill article, he was the primary subject of that coverage. Or at least, it was evenly split between Crow and Tillemann Corbantd (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being the primary subject of one source is not enough to confer a WP:GNG pass in and of itself. To make a valid claim that a person has passed GNG for the candidacy itself, the candidate has to garner far more than the merely expected and WP:ROUTINE level of campaign coverage that always exists for all candidates — the canonical example is Christine O'Donnell, who got so bloody much coverage that her article cites 160 sources, and is consequently both longer and better sourced than our article about the guy she lost to. One extralocal source giving a candidate coverage that goes beyond mentioning his existence is not enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot take the candidacy completely out of the equation and still have a keepable article about somebody who already met a notability standard for some other reason, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to get an article on here for his political activities per se. About half the footnotes here are primary sources (his own campaign website, his own staff profile on the website of his own employer, YouTube videos, FEC directories, etc.) that cannot assist notability at all, and even the ones that are to proper reliable sources are almost entirely local and WP:ROUTINE: the media are expected to grant coverage to local political races happening in their own coverage area, which means that every candidate in any election always gets some media attention. Accordingly, such coverage does not get the candidate over WP:GNG as a Christine O'Donnell-style special case unless and until it explodes into something far out of proportion to what every candidate could always show. So this article simply isn't demonstrating what's actually required. Bearcat (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This particular race is garnering attention outside the usual local/regional area, per The Hill and similar -- the line between "namechecks" and coverage is a thin one, but in the case of a US Congressional race, when there are enough "namechecks" that go beyond a simple laundry list, this is strong evidence that someone is a major candidate for Federal Office, and thus notable -- far beyond, for example, a candidate for a state or local office. In this case, this individual has been a speaker at the DNC, the contested primary has been discussed at Roll Call, Crow has been noticed by several other national outlets, including CNN, The Chicago Tribune The Week, Axios, and although being one of Denver's "40 Under 40" isn't notable by itself, the coverage from 2013 was neutral, third party prior to his run for office, so it is a contributing factor. He also has been targeted by the NRCC, so getting the attention of one's opponents also contributes. In short, this one is of adequate indicia of notability to pass GNG. Also, there is no rule that one has to "take the candidacy completely out of the equation." That is neither consensus nor part of NPOL, which states, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable...[per GNG]" Nothing says that coverage outside of the candidacy is the only thing that can be used. Montanabw^(talk) 22:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The points you speak of seem to me to go to the notability of the election itself, which would merit an article anyway. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

331dot is correct: the coverage you're talking about speaks to the notability of the election, which is already going to get an article anyway once the time comes that people start working on the 2018-midterms cycle articles, and not to the independent notability of every (or any) individual candidate in the election's primary process. Again, this type of coverage always exists for every candidate in every election, but Wikipedia's notability rules for politicians are intentionally designed to prevent Wikipedia from devolving into a repository of unelected candidates' campaign brochures — the expected and WP:ROUTINE coverage of candidates in the context of an election campaign does not count as WP:GNG-conferring coverage for the purposes of handing each individual candidate a standalone BLP separately from the overall article about the campaign. As of right now, we're still talking about a person who's a candidate in a primary race that's still about a year away, and that's simply not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself — even being a candidate in the general election isn't enough except in a few very isolated special cases. And yes, the only other way a candidate gets a Wikipedia article is if they already cleared a notability standard for some other reason completely divorced of their candidacy itself — such as having already held another notable political office, or already having had preexisting notability in sports or arts or business. Bearcat (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think what we're seeing this develop into is quite the opposite of a campaign brochure -- it is a valuable reference highlighting both assets and controversies surrounding a particularly notable candidate. Corbantd (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except the notability guidelines specifically state that candidates are not notable just for being candidates. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely possible for a campaign brochure to be written in a seemingly neutral and not overly advertorial way, or even a negative one (e.g. a competing candidate's attack ads against their opponent still fall under the rubric of campaign literature — and yes, our articles can be and are often used as a venue for attack edits against opponents, and protecting people from that risk is one of the reasons we limit political notability to officeholders rather than mere candidates.) What determines whether it is or isn't a campaign brochure is not just the writing tone that is or isn't used, but the simple fact that its purpose for existing is tied directly to an election campaign. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unelected candidate with no other claim to notability. And Note that all Democratic candidates for Congress are getting more and earlier coverage than in an ordinary year. This is not a testament to the special notability of this or other candidates, merely the consequence of the political moment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:43, 10 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 06:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect WP:POLOUTCOMES states, "Candidates who ran but never were elected for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls, such as Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 1995 Ontario provincial election, or into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010." Looking through the sources in the article, there is nothing that indicates that the subject is notable outside of the election campaign, nor has the subject received a disproportionate amount of coverage similar to Christine O'Donnell, whose campaign received international coverage. The community consensus is that the details of the specific race are notable, and most of the reliable source coverage is about the campaign, rather than the subject (or are tangential COATRACK issues). --Enos733 (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

I think this needs one more week of discussion to see if the redirect option gains any traction.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Perhaps too soon.--Rpclod (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage outside of running for office, fails WPOL. Cllgbksr (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:ROUTINE doesn't apply here. It's designed to exclude very short notices, such as sports scores and death announcements, not all coverage that occurs on a predictable timetable. In fact, the advice on how to interpret WP:ROUTINE at WP:NOTROUTINE uses coverage of political races as a specific example of something that is not to be considered routine coverage. Regardless of whether or not the political notability guidelines are met, WP:GNG clearly are met here, it's very quick and easy to find multiple independent and reliable sources giving this guy significant coverage that allows an article to be sourced, such as this or this or this. Landscape repton (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are all related to his candidacy, which is specifically called out as not meeting notability. They are more relevant to the election itself. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in WP:GNG that supports that reading. It just demands significant coverage is given to him so that an article can be written without requiring original research. That's clearly the case with these sources. Significant coverage isn't exclusive, in that a single source can give significant coverage to multiple topics. A source can be a source for both an individual and for the political campaign; the fact it does the latter doesn't invalidate the former. Landscape repton (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One local paper, one Denver article focused on the other candidate, and one non-authoritative blogish site are not sufficient to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the volume of reliable source coverage shown here were enough in and of itself, then every candidate in any election would always pass GNG. But Wikipedia is routinely misused as a PR platform by wannabes in a lot of fields of human endeavour — so for human occupations, our notability standards explicitly spell out certain markers of accomplishment that have to be passed before an article is considered acceptable. And for politicians, one of the rules is that they have to hold a notable office, not just be a candidate for one — and while there are rare special cases where a candidacy garners a lot more coverage than the norm (e.g. Christine O'Donnell, whose article cites 160 distinct sources), GNG is not automatically passed just because some media coverage of the candidacy exists, because some media coverage of all candidacies in all elections always exists. What needs to be shown to get a candidate into Wikipedia just for being a candidate is that his candidacy is a lot more notable than most other candidacies are, but that's not what's being shown here. WP:ROUTINE does include coverage that's merely expected to exist, such as local coverage of local politics, and is not limited to just short blurbs. And just for the record, the volume of reliable source coverage present here is not equal to the number of footnotes present — at a glance, about half the footnotes are primary sources, press releases, blogs, YouTube videos or tweets, not real media coverage, and what's left after all of those are discounted is not enough in either volume or depth to deem his candidacy somehow special. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Rpclod that it is too soon and fails WP:Politician. Dolotta (talk) 05:41, 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 List_of_The_Transformers_(TV_series)_characters#Constructicons, where Scrapper is already listed. Lots of crufty info in this article that will not be lost to the universe after the redirect, because there is no shortage of well-attended Transformers fan wikis. I am IAR and closing this up despite the recent relist, as third relists are an extraordinary measure that shouldn't be deployed for relatively uncontroversial topics like this one. #StopTheRelistingMadness. A Train^talk 19:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scrapper (Transformers)[edit]

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

This does not establish notability. There was really nothing put forth in the previous AfD, so not sure why that ended up as a keep result. The "Top 10 Reasons to Skip Work and Go See Transformers 2" is extremely trivial and doesn't even mention the character by name. Everything else is either primary or does not assist in establishing notability. TTN (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Decepticons. BOZ (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Decepticons. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redirect or delete as above. No need for this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please ping the participants of the prev. AfD!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Decepticons; the coverage offered is shallow and not sufficient for stand-alone notability. The article is largely unsourced original research and trivia. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because List of Decepticons has been a redirect to Lists of Transformers characters since July 1, so "redirect" would just be a circuitous way of saying delete. - GretLomborg (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pinging @BOZ, Argento Surfer, Josh Milburn, and K.e.coffman: Since the previous merge/redirect target no longer exists, keep or merge/redirect somewhere else?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Talk:Lists of Transformers characters#Proposed merge with List of Autobots needed a longer discussion before it was closed and implemented by its sole responder? BOZ (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was asked by name: I don't really mind, but let's try to avoid this article sticking around for another 12 years. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, delete and redirect to a "list of transformers" article. There is no in-depth character analysis. Therefore this subject is unsuitable for a standalone article as per the WP:GNG. AadaamS (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Constructicons. There is no significant content focused on the subject. Nor is notability indicated.--Rpclod (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to one of the list articles mentioned above, it doesn't matter which. This is a minor fictional character with no real-life notoriety. Not sure why this has been relisted 3 times when the consensus against keeping is clear. ValarianB (talk) 19:01, 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 2017 Badminton Asia Junior Championships. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' Singles[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:NOTSTATS, as far as I can tell. No evidence of notability beyond the main championship. - Mr X 18:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable sports tournament. Ajf773 (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A lot of similar events from different sports are already on Wikipedia, so if somebody wants to delete such events a more general discussion must be started. See for instance 2013 Pacific-Asia Junior Curling Championships, 1990 Asian Junior Athletics Championships – Women's 400 metres, IIHF Asian Oceanic U18 Championships, 2014 Asian Women's U19 Volleyball Championship, 1970 ABC Under-18 Championship. Additionally, if searching for "2017 Asian Junior Championships" Badminton -wikipedia on Google, a lot of independent sources can be found for this event. Florentyna (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those articles should be candidates for AfD as well. Ajf773 (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is not a notable tournament at all. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2017 Badminton Asia Junior Championships since making a separate page for lowel level tournament is not needed. Griff88 (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is clearly not headed in the keep direction, but relisting for another week to give people a chance to consider the recently-suggested merge argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with merge suggestion, as above - i.e. can be merged with 2017 Badminton Asia Junior Championships. Vorbee (talk) 09:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with merge. notable tournament Stvbastian (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Honestly I've never really understood why tennis and badminton tournaments needed separate articles for singles and doubles when you could just have one article for the whole tournament. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:33, 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 DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hawar News Agency[edit]

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

DePRODed without addressing the issues for reason of: ...' it serves as Rojava's de facto state media and is thus deserving of having an article.' . PROD concern was: The article appears to be about an organization or web content, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. With the exception of primary sources the supplied sources are not about the subject. The sources do not confer notability. Fails WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Redirect: After reading Batternut's argumentation on the talk page, I support this move, insofar as the article should be tranformed into a redirect for Media of Syria. Applodion (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Redirect: replacing this article with a redirect to Media of Syria#Hawar News Agency, where a summary of the Hawar News Agency exists, is the best option I can think of. Batternut (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe Hawar News Agency is notable enough to merit an article. There are many references to the ANHA organisation in mainstream media outlets, including BusinessInsider (link), The Independent (link), ABC/Fox (link), Reuters (link) and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostOfNoMeme (talk • contribs) 16:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Keep Hawa News Agency is mentioned by tens of international sources.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] It's even used by published books.^[5] Ferakp (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-the-latest-syrian-government-kurds-reach-truce-in-hasakeh-2016-8?r=US&IR=T&IR=T
^ https://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/us-backed-forces-in-syria-enter-raqqa-s-old-city-1.91913
^ https://apnews.com/e4b8e76876d149a8a1dd62fef1a5aff0/us-backed-syrian-forces-set-sights-valley-north-raqqa
^ http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/oct/05/syrias-military-to-reduce-airstrikes-for-aleppo-ev/#/0
^ https://books.google.fi/books?id=7kYlDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT352&lpg=PT352&dq=hawar+news+agency+United+Nation&source=bl&ots=szDRIHuWtS&sig=yzqrITIy7WNqVeXhEJUfMrLkw3I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj02prrkvXUAhVKb1AKHSiaCxgQ6AEITDAH#v=onepage&q=hawar%20news%20agency%20United%20Nation&f=false

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Applodion, Batternut, Ferakp, and GhostOfNoMeme:---Please use Keep or Merge or Redirect or Delete rather than Support or Oppose.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 09:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I usually loathe to relist a third time but currently it's not clear whether this should be kept or redirected and another week of discussion might yield a clearer consensus on that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Does seem to have enough sources, and these sort of articles' detailing the affiliations and possible biases of media outlets are useful (since the outlets themselves are rarely upfront about it). The suggested option to delete and list it only on Media of Syria is not a correct option - that article is essentially a list article, and, as I understand it, should not have organisations on it that do not already have notability enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per: WP:GNG. As noted above, Hawar is mentioned by many reputable sources which makes it notable. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:41, 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. Per the uncontested sources. But this will need some cleaning for promotionalism, so tagging Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rightware[edit]

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

Typical corporate spam. sources like tech crunch, unreliable source for media as per standards. Light2021 (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. WIkipedia is not a hosting service for this company's office locator and product brochure. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous editors' points.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find two sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability - this review of the software and this article from ubergizmo. Any issues with the article can be fixed by removing overly-promotional text. The article therefore meets WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether the sources establish notability and whether (per editing/deletion policy) removal of the promotional parts is possible instead of deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The articles from TechCrunch, AnandTech, and Ubergizmo are usable as third-party reliable sources for this topic, and I found additional sources that support this subject passing GNG:

"User interface software company Rightware raises $5.2m from Inventure, Nexit and others" - The Next Web
"Rightware finds a home for its Kanzi user interface in car computers and mobile devices" - VentureBeat
"Rightware designs a futuristic dashboard for Maserati concept car" - VentureBeat
"Rightware Launches Basemark ES 3.1, World's First OpenGL ES 3.1 Benchmark" - Tom's Hardware
"RightWare Announces Basemark Halti - an OpenGL ES Halti Benchmark" - AnandTech
"Nordic companies drive the future of the smartcar industry" - Computer Weekly
"OS builder Thundersoft buys UI maker Rightware for $68M to expand in automotive" - TechCrunch

Dreamyshade (talk) 21:11, 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. Most of the keep arguments came from four editors with very limited history, who made all of their edits in a narrow range of india-related topics, and who offer no policy-based reasoning to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jvchawla -- RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sudarshan Venu[edit]

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

Unsourced "article" about a non-notable scion of a business family; appears to have been created by his publicist, who is demanding that we remove the no-index on the article to improve search results. Orange Mike | Talk 23:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - well, there is one source now, but it doesn't look like the subject meets the requirements for WP:ANYBIO.PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. The only source cited is to an interview with the subject and so not independent. Maproom (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added reliable sources from media and other websites as evidence of notability. Have also Edited any possible contentious content, added recent awards and added information on his nomination by Government of India to be a member of the National Board of Electric Mobility - he was also recently awarded as India's leading young business leader by leading business publication, The Economic Times. jvchawla (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is backed by multiple credible sources including Forbes India, The Economic Times and The Hindu Business Line. The person is a notable Indian business leader and has also been awarded by one of India's leading business publications. No section of the article is of promotional nature. EditorRutt (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of reliable sources. No contentious content. Sund90 (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The question which was asked about who are the "we" who "want TVS Motor JMD's (Sudarshan Venu) Wiki Profile Page to be shown up in Search Results" remains unanswered. Either / both a WP:DISCLOSE and a COI tag are needed. AllyD (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a profile suitable for a corporate website and much less so for an encyclopaedia. While I can see routine announcements such as the appointment of the subject and his sister to director positions in the family business [11], I don't see this or the subject's role as one of the industry appointments to a Board or appearance on a "40 under 40" list as indicative of attained biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 06:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources seem to point towards notable achievements, especially his nomination by the Government of India to the National Board of Electric Mobility. Shiprajohar (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To further discuss whether the new sources establish notability under WP:BASIC
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotionalism on an insignificant business executive. Coverate is routine and / or WP:SPIP, as in:

Sudarshan Venu is the Joint Managing Director of TVS Motor Company. He is also a Member of the Board at Sundaram-Clayton Ltd.[9] In addition, he set up Emerald Haven (Realty) and TVS Credit Services (non-deposit NBFC). He serves on both these boards! Etc.

The "Keep" votes are mostly from SPAs who have offered no sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Being the creator of the article, I have edited it to retain information that showcases his credibility which is verified by reliable media sources. He is the Joint MD of India's third largest two-wheeler manufacturer and is a significant young business leader. The media sources too showcase evidence of notability.jvchawla (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking duplicate !vote. You can comment as much as you would like, but only !vote once. Natg 19 (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete routine coverage for the purpose of creating a WP:NOTLINKEDIN profile. — fortunavelut luna 10:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. I hate to go against AGF, but it's clear that these keep votes are from sock puppets. DrStrauss talk 14:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per EditorRutt. The sudden arrival of the accoutns does look suspicious to me, if someone wants to either file the spi or contact a CU I endroes that decision. I will neither be TNTing the page or contacting a CU tonight as I am busy. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a hoax (G3) (deleted by Bbb23). (non-admin closure) KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 19:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Takahashi[edit]

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

Article is wholly unsourced and ignores facts such as that the "manager" in question was a stuffed animal for a short-lived pro-wrestling story angle. This page is effectively someone's inside joke. Goatshoes (talk) 17:51, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:07, 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. I am going to broadly interpret Richard3120's comment as an argument in favour of deletion -- because it certainly reads like one. Please interpret this close as a WP:SOFTDELETE and request a WP:REFUND if you can improve this article. A Train^talk 13:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"So Good"[edit]

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

Contested prod, orignally done by Kudpung. See the prod notice in the page history. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 17:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the single made no. 49 on the Billboard Hot Hip Hop Songs Chart, but with such a minor placing and no other information about it, I don't think that's enough to pass WP:NSONGS. It's also debatable as to whether the album it comes from, Ericka, or the article about Ericka Yancey herself are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles – neither are properly referenced and the album was never released anyway. This single was Ms Yancey's biggest "hit" and I can't find any information so far about her. Richard3120 (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. While the song reached the US R&B chart, I'm not finding coverage to warrant a standalone article; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. gongshow talk 01:34, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Rodriguez[edit]

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

Non-notable individual journalist and fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, No indication that subject meets notability. Many of the links provided are either dead or turn up promotional coverage, but nothing else significant. Simply being a ex journalist and current academic doesn't rise to inclusion in encyclopedic content The Columbian Journalism Librarian (talk) 16:38, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Doesn't pass WP:JOURNALIST and page exists to to be largely self promotional. The Columbian Journalism Librarian (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC) the nominator does not vote, the nomination itself is the delete argument Atlantic306 (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Article was obviously promotional from the start, it hasn't materially improved since, and it's regrettable that it took nine years for anyone to take this to deletion. No evidence this meets the GNG, and there's no notability guideline this does meet. Ravenswing 11:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article's subject, who was also its creator, has requested via VRTS ticket # 2017070810003492 that the article be deleted. KDS4444 (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 07:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Klutz Book of Paper Airplanes[edit]

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

This article fails both the notability WP:N and promotion WP:PROMOTION tests. There are many, many books about paper airplanes and this one is not particularly special. Mgolden (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This book has received a short review in Publisher's Weekly. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mysteriously, this is actually the only book on paper airplanes I own (have had it for a decade) but it's clearly not very special, not in that there are many books about paper airplanes, but in after doing further research, I have discovered that many of the designs included in the book are frankly unoriginal. If the paper airplanes were original, it would be a keep based on the longevity of the print run as well as having the Klutz branding, but it does not, so...Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: very little significant coverage in independent sources. Northamerica1000's link does warrant coverage but it isn't in-depth enough. DrStrauss talk 16:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG worse that I had expected. I own this book as well. My headhunters never flew straight :( L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naina (song)[edit]

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

Nothing specifically covering this song.All covg. in general film-sound-track review(s).The critical reception section writes reviews of the song from mostly WP:RS sections but WP:NSONGS says ... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created...; which is what is happening here.Singular coverage lonely in promotional writings.Merge and/or Redirect to film article sought.Ping Cyphoidbomb as someone involved in the case. Winged Blades^Godric 17:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 16:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viareggio (beach soccer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD, removed without any particular rationale. Unsourced article on a beach soccer team which a search (in which regard I freely admit to an inability to read Italian) only appears to give run-of-the-mill information confirming that the team exists. There is a claim to notability in that they've won a European competition, but I note that that competition also doesn't appear to have much in the way of coverage, although it's hampered by having a name that makes it a challenge to search for "cleanly". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the only "source" given is the org's Facebook page. I'd expect an editor to try a little harder when starting articles. No reason to keep this one; no usable content would be lost. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of independent sources Spiderone 16:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing any evidence their continental victory has garnered sufficient independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:21, 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. So Why 07:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kacper Żuk[edit]

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

Non-notable tennis player. Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Adamtt9 (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - Only wins in events that are even below the minor league of tennis. Nothing notable here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATHLETE. DrStrauss talk 15:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I went to the GNews page and used the translator to see what I could find. I found some mentions, but not enough in depth coverage. Should WikiProject Tennis be courtesy pinged? L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Already showing up on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis main page. Hopefully many will see it like I did. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Matuszewski[edit]

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

Non-notable tennis player. Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Adamtt9 (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see nothing notable at all here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATHLETE. DrStrauss talk 15:00, 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. A Train^talk 13:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reubonic[edit]

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

Non-notable Jennica✿ / ^talk 04:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also to discuss whether this could be merged/redirected per WP:NALBUM
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on John Reuben.Vorbee (talk) 17:56, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toshl[edit]

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

non notable software. Surprisingly few reviews in a field where everything important is widely reviewed/ DGG ( talk ) 07:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:52, 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. Hut 8.5 21:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diversidad – The Experience Album[edit]

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

Unsure of the notability or this Jennica✿ / ^talk 08:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wasn't able to find any sources for this album, only machine-generated chart pages and the like. Clearly non-notable. ZarosFlok (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NMUSIC. DrStrauss talk 15:01, 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) 11:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-Pacific Partnership intellectual property provisions[edit]

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

Most of the text in this article is (i) out of date and based on leaks (most of the article was written in 2012![12]), and (ii) egregious examples of original research. The article is in such poor shape that it's beyond repair, short of deleting most of the content and starting anew. That said, there is no reason for a separate article, as any relevant content can simply be added to the 'Trans-Pacific Partnership' article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article takes the form of an analyst's attempt to boil down the document. It is OR, not a journalist's view. Rhadow (talk) 12:02, 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) 21:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biju Sopanam[edit]

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

Non notable actor. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NACTOR. An anon de-PRoD'ed the article, the only award won by te actor is not much notable either. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Initial Google search found nothing important about him. No in-depth media coverage except here and there mentions. No major awards. Fails WP:NACTOR--Elton-Rodrigues 15:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails GNG and NACTOR. Quis separabit? 03:54, 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. Please propose a merge on the article's talk page . A Train^talk 13:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis[edit]

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

Dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A notable topic, and the article can be expanded. Scholarly source examples include [13], [14], [15]. Not seeing how omission of this topic from the encyclopedia would improve the encyclopedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better merged with Cost-effectiveness analysis. Rathfelder (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to cost-effectiveness analysis. Insufficient content for an article currently. Sandstein 07:34, 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. So Why 07:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Maruthi Yuvajana Sangam[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation.Promotional intent. Winged Blades^Godric 11:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. Non sourced article, found no reliable source while performing WP:BEFORE--Elton-Rodrigues 15:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable company. DrStrauss talk 15:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fials the GNG, 0 search returns. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gotovčevi[edit]

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

No substantial sources, just fragmentary coverage. No claim of notability. An entry in a hypothetical List of Croatian reality television programs at best. GregorB (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:49, 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. So Why 07:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khuzh[edit]

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

WP:NOTANARMENIANDICTIONARY KDS4444 (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Keira 1996 04:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT DrStrauss talk 14:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The different policies Wikipedia has to cover everything never ceases to amaze…Oh. WP:NOT L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No quorum for this discussion, but no prejudice against a speedy renomination. A Train^talk 13:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SugarBee[edit]

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

This is not a notable product and it is not even expected to be produced at "commercial volume" for several years (according to article creator). Maybe it will be a notable variety of apple in the future, but doesn't seem to be now. There is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. It's a promotional article written by SPA with an apparent conflict of interest. Prod was removed by another SPA. Deli nk (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be unambiguous promotion, and Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion. WP:TOOSOON for the apple itself. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:48, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrello Records[edit]

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

Rejected PROD: no citations are about the organisation, so fails WP:GNG; a record label with very few releases all related to one band. Bondegezou (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment they have some releases from other artists here but nothing recent Atlantic306 (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:48, 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 with no prejudice to anyone creating a redirect if they think it is necessary. Hut 8.5 21:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits (Girish album)[edit]

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

Non-notable, cites stuff like wordpress, musicmatch (a lyric site) and that the album was "well-received by the Nepalese audience". Jennica✿ / ^talk 21:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 22:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 22:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 22:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient coverage in RS to meet GNG.Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | spout _ 21:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To also discuss whether a redirect to Girish Khatiwada could be an alternative per WP:NALBUM
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources don't give SIGCOV. DrStrauss talk 15:03, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Best Quality Software Awards[edit]

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

Fails GNG - corporate promotion ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that this promotional article links to the following two articles: BCS Sri Lanka Section which is an AfD, and Draft:Creately at MfD. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable awards. Dan arndt (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 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 09:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software award article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up PR and incidental mentions like [16], but no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 16:18, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Safet Sušić (novel)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BOOKCRIT notability. - Mr X 22:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:46, 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. Hut 8.5 21:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Robin[edit]

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

WP:BLP, written as a cross between an advertorial PR profile and a résumé instead of as a proper encyclopedia article, about a photographer who may have valid claims of notability per WP:NARTIST but isn't properly sourcing them. Nearly all of the sources here are primary sources or blogs or circular referencing to other Wikipedia articles — for example, all of the "www.leclubdesad.org" footnotes (#14 through #29) are not to media coverage about him, but to archived copies of the ads he worked on. Literally the only footnote in the entire article that represents reliable source coverage about him is a 50-word blurb. As always, every photographer is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists; reliable source coverage about him in media must be present to support the notability claims for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this looks like a translation from an article on the French Wikipedia. I'm not sure there's any case for notability in the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's definitely a translation from fr:Marc Robin. The first deleted revision (by the same editor who wrote the draft) very obviously began as Google Translate output, from the way it mangled the markup. —Cryptic 17:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I ran a news archive search on proquest, ("Marc Robin" + photographer) which really ought to turn up something on a photographer of any notability at all. zip. nada. (There is, however, a conspicuously notable choreographer named Marc Robin who truly ought to have an article.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 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 redirect to Hardwell discography. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How We Do (Hardwell and Showtek song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Redirect - it has charted on a national chart. Meets WP:NSONG. - TheMagnificentist 10:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Quote WP:NSONG "Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable". for actual notability NSONG posits the song must have "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label". IOW, WP:NSONG has not been met. Kleuske (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I got it confused for WP:MUSICBIO, seems there's no other sources for this and it is unlikely to grow beyond stub-class. - TheMagnificentist 13:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - per nominator. A single chart position and single source does not establish notability, hence fails WP:NSONG. Hayman30 (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I mean Redirect. Hayman30 (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Hayman30's reasoning above—just not the delete part. Ss 112 12:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hardwell or merge with Showtek.Vorbee (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect to where exactly?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hardwell discography as first credited artist. Hayman30 (talk) 16:18, 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. So Why 07:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yumi Nakatani[edit]

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

Unfortunately, despite my best efforts, I was unable to find enough significant coverage about this voice actress. A Japanese search wasn't of much help, and the English search wasn't much better. She has only four bolded entries (for two roles) on Anime News Network, none of which were lead roles, suggesting that she does not pass WP:ENT. As she was primarily active in the 1970s onward, it's possible that some coverage exists offline, but given the lack of roles, I'm not confident that this is the case. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No ANN articles or appearances in conventions. The JA Wikipedia article is a credits dump as well with no biographical information. ja:中谷ゆみ Would be hard pressed to find encyclopedic information beyond WP:BUTITEXISTS. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find enough reliable sources that mention it, I don't speak Japanese so even if these did exist I couldn't analyse the depth of the coverage. DrStrauss talk 16:42, 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) 11:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Requires Wings[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB, has been tagged with this problem since December 2016. Alizaa2 (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:36, 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 15:43, 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. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Haynes (comedian)[edit]

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

Tagged as a problem since September 2015. All sources are primary, and all the ones I could find are one off mentions. Delete. Alizaa2 (talk) 14:18, 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) 15:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:42, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Letchworth and District Family History Group[edit]

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

Seems to be a town's family history group with no discernable notability whatsoever. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which this article fails 100%:

"They meet for an 8 pm start on the third Wednesday of each month (except August and December) at The Clulow Room, St George's Church, Norton Way North, Letchworth." (??)

K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a community events listing service.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 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) 21:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trisha Alicia[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a musician, who has a potentially valid notability claim per WP:NMUSIC but is completely failing to reliably source it. The referencing here is based entirely on primary sources, such as her own self-published social networking content and an unreliable public relations platform, with no evidence of media coverage about her shown at all. And the base notability claim, that she had a song peak #73 in a Billboard specialty genre chart, would be enough if the article were sourced properly but is not compelling enough to hand her an automatic presumption of notability on bad sources. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source it properly, but the writing tone and sourcing here are not good enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete I concur with user Bearcat, doesn't pass muster due to lack of independent reliable sourcing, fails WP:GNG Cllgbksr (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:58, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Richard[edit]

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

fails WP:NMUSIC non-notable musician. The sources are simply user profiles, also fails WP:GNG. MassiveYR ♠ 19:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 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) 21:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rosario Citarda[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist - really not that impressive. PRehse (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Most of the references are not independent or are general articles on Krav Maga that don't necessarily even mention him. There's also no independent supporting evidence to show he meets the notability criteria for martial artists at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:34, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Credit rating transition[edit]

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

Unreferenced article that has no significant coverage in reliable sources (therefore failing the WP:GNG) and should be deleted. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't say anything that's not already in credit rating. Not a concept independent of credit ratings: ratings change, there's no reason for them to be fixed. Maybe there's something interesting that can be said about ratings going up or down, but this article doesn't contribute anything, and any additional information could be included in the article on credit ratings rather than fragmenting it unnecessarily. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 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 15:33, 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. So Why 07:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Crean International Stage Combat Conferences[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no sources and my own search found no significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG. Notability isn't asserted due to lack of significant coverage. DrStrauss talk 16:42, 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 withdrawn. Jdcooper has improved the article such that it no longer requires deletion. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk please use {{ping|DrStrauss}} when replying 14:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Democratic Party (Czech Republic)[edit]

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

Short-lived organisation which fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. No indication of significant coverage. DrStrauss talk 14:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see how it's relevant that it was short-lived, but there are plenty of potential sources on Emanuel Mandler's czech wikipedia page and from a google search for "Liberálně demokratická strana mandler". Also, according to the Mandler Czech wikipedia page, this party had representation in the parliament from 1990-92, and I don't know if there are official notability criteria anywhere for political parties, but that strikes me as a pretty solid one. I accept that the article is short and as yet unpopulated with info (I created it about an hour ago!) but those alone are not grounds for deletion. Jdcooper (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a link to the Czech parliament website listing Mandler as an LDS MP. Jdcooper (talk) 15:34, 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. So Why 07:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colorism Biases in Mexican Telenovelas[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic subject. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. I can see the theoretical possibility of an encyclopedia article somewhere in the vicinity of "racial bias in television programming", but this is not its title or its structure or its substance or its sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Bearcat. The article needs a fundamental rewrite to be considered encyclopedic in tone. DrStrauss talk 16:43, 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. So Why 07:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael S. Moates[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Reference are quick quotes, Facebook, or examples of articles. reddogsix (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here constitutes an automatic pass of any subject-specific inclusion standard, and exactly zero of the sources present in the article are about him — all five are about somebody else, and merely embed a single tweet from him about that other person, and that's before you even rip the Breitbart source out of the article because holy hell to the never. A journalist gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of reliable source coverage in media, not by tweeting his own opinions on things into a self-published notability — so nothing written or sourced here gets him a Wikipedia article as of today. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:SIGCOV in the sources provided, just passing mentions. DrStrauss talk 16:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did give it the old college try. Searched his name with likely keywords. Looked into the publication he writes for, The Narrative Times, as minor webzine of no notability that I could discover. sources on the page are not WP:SIGCOV. Frankly this looks like mere PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:44, 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 redirect to America's Next Top Model (cycle 14). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raina Hein[edit]

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

Non-notable person. All sources are primary. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being the runner-up in a reality show is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to have enough reliable source coverage in real media to clear WP:GNG — but the only thing here that isn't a primary source is still an invalid source, because it's a WordPress blog and those don't count for squat either. And while I'll grant that it's not blatant enough to trigger my speedy deletion reflex, there is a not insignificant advertorial spin present here too. Bearcat (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to America's Next Top Model (cycle 14) per WP:ATD-R. Plausible search term even if not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Should have been redirected by the nominator per WP:BEFORE C.4 instead of bringing it here. Regards So Why 07:36, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amina Bokhary controversy[edit]

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

Request by subject ticket:2017020510005638 S Philbrick (Talk) 13:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I could not get in the OTRS. I'd like to know the reasons for this nomination. STSC (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I was the subject, I would not be pleased with the negative portrayal, but a request from the subject for deletion is not in itself addequate grounds. Say what you will about the overbearing HK media because the crime is a minor one, but the event was a significant controversy in Hong Kong worthy of a WP article. It seems otherwise to be written in a fairly objective manner, and therefore does not fall into the category of an attack page. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep per WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The controversy did look like a storm in a tea cup but is nonetheless notable according to Wikipedia. STSC (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note that I am an OTRS agent. We cannot disclose the contents of the tickets beyond saying that it contained a request for deletion of this article. This nomination should be considered procedurally made by an OTRS agent. Sphilbrick may or may not support deletion, but I don't believe he intends to fall one way or the other in this discussion (correct me if wrong). My !vote is based on the coverage the topic has received. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If the subject of an article requests deletion of the article we typically inform them how they can request that themselves, but if they have difficulty we offer to do it for them. Unless we arrange for the permission of the person contacting us, we not permitted to provide details. The nomination does not necessarily reflect my views regarding the article. In some cases, we may advise the subject that it is likely to be a waste of time, but if they insist we carry it out.--S Philbrick (Talk) 11:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well sourced article that has significant coverage. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 01:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This story was extensively covered in HK media at the time and the article reflects that. Matt's talk 08:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article isn't violating any policy. Request from subject of the controversy is noted, but there will still be people that want to read about it and not wanting it being read, isn't enough a reason to delete. WikiVirusC^(talk) 10:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on keep. I respect Bokhary's wish to take down the article, but this article is neutrally written and sourced from publicly available information. Deryck C. 11:10, 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) 21:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Barnwell[edit]

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

Unremarkable (sadly) crim. TheLongTone (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It has mitigating circumstances. The Holy Spirit of Coke (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Struck sock Mdann52 (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per article writer. PsychoticInq (talk) 21:56, 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 09:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this case does not appear to meet the notability criteria for murder articles. Even if it did, the title should be "Murder of James Brennan".--Rpclod (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rpclod, and failing WP:GNG. Mdann52 (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CRIME and WP:LASTING. The brunt of the media attention was focused in the immediate aftermath of the incident.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. If anyone does want to merge this I'll be happy to restore it as a redirect for you. Hut 8.5 21:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Burkinabé Americans[edit]

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

Small immigrant group that doesn't seem to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:26, 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 08:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Burkina Faso per nom, I searched for sources but could not find enough in depth coverage to meet WP:GNG and justify a stand alone article. The sourced material could be merged into Burkina Faso. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A better merge target might be African immigration to the United States#Population, though that relies on official statistics, which are absent from the article under discussion here. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough press coverage to warrant an article. DrStrauss talk 16:46, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nigerien Americans[edit]

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

Article about 629 people, who don't appear to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 19:18, 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 08:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Niger per nom, I searched for sources but could not find enough in depth coverage to meet WP:GNG and justify a stand alone article. The sourced material could be merged into Niger. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And the best reference is a 404 error. Rhadow (talk) 12:07, 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) 21:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lim May Zhee[edit]

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

Prodded by an IP, in an apparent case of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. IP's rationale: Would really like to request that this page deleted, per Wikipedia's policy as such: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed. If a deletion discussion of any biographical article (of whether a well known or less known individual) has received few or no comments from any editor besides the nominator, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment." Please for the love of God can we just remove this entry of Wikipedia or at least fix it to be accurate in which case the only factual thing about it is that this individual lives in Brooklyn, New York...which does not make it very notable for Wikipedia. – Train2104 (t • c) 18:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 19:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 19:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 19:17, 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 08:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on the text of the article, I think the subject would not meet our notability requirements. In addition, all four references are dead links (and external links provided in the previous AFD are dead links), so the entire content of the article is unverifiable. Combined with the apparent deletion request from the subject of the article, it should be deleted. Deli nk (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per request.--Rpclod (talk) 12:36, 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. Hut 8.5 21:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aleko Elisashvili[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this is one of four main candidates for the third most important elected position in Georgia, in what will be the most important election in 2017 -- the candidate is receiving increasing coverage in English, too (there is very wide coverage in Georgian), I started this when he announced his candidacy. (Note that I am in no way connected.) I would appreciate if you give it/me a bit more time, and remove the deletion notice. Hundnase (talk) 04:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As yet unelected candidates in future elections do not get Wikipedia articles just for the fact of being candidates per se — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason besides the candidacy, then he does not become notable enough for an article until he wins the election. Tbilisi is quite obviously a large and important enough city that he'd qualify for an article if he wins the mayoralty, so no prejudice against recreation on or after election day if that happens, but merely being a candidate for mayor as of today is not enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On candidates, I agree, but this makes more sense for elections where there are lots of jokester candidates. He is one candidate out of four, and thus is receiving coverage and attention, and is notable, in ways that any random candidate is not. Yet even beyond that, he is notable -- he has been a central figure in a major scandal/allegation in Georgia, for which I now have added more material. Taken together, I think this justifies keeping him. Hundnase (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our role to judge whether a candidacy is "serious" or a "joke" — either a person is a candidate or they're not, period. We apply no subjective tests to determine whose candidacies are more or less "serious" than whose — and we extend notability, for the purposes of getting a Wikipedia article, only to (a) the winner, and/or (b) people who can be properly shown to have already qualified for an article for some other reason anyway. By the way...you know who else's candidacy was considered a joke by a lot of serious people quite recently? This guy. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

guys, it's fully understood that being a candidate by itself is NOT enough to be notable. Yet this should not mean that ALL candidates automatically should be deleted. Plus, please check the article. The guy IS notable, he has been a/the leading urban activist, and the chair of the Presidential commission on pardons -- that is a major and notable role, with national importance, plus a key figure in a major issue/scandal. I have added these to the entry. English language coverage in media is not 100%, so these sources are not (yet) perfect. I am working to make more substantive info available from Georgia, and would regret if major public figures are eradicated. Then the reaction of people will be -- ok, why bother, people from other countries like to shoot down when we try to document stuff on Wikipedia, since we don't have tons of English-language media. Here is a screenshot from the site that best covers Georgia in English, illustrating 49 items with his name, suggesting a fair degree of notability, across the years.

Thanks for appropriate consideration Hundnase (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule that the sources for a Wikipedia article have to be in English — foreign language sources are allowed to be used. Whatever language the sources are in, however, there is a rule that they have to adequately support passage of a defined notability criterion — for instance, a source doesn't assist in getting a person over WP:GNG if it just namechecks his existence as a bit player or a giver of soundbite rather than being substantively about him, and nearly all of the sources in your screenshot are the former rather than the latter. Playing a role in exposing a scandal, frex, doesn't speak to his notability just because his name appears in coverage of the scandal — he would have to be the subject of the media coverage, not just a name that appears in coverage of other people, before it assisted in building notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While some levels of candidates may be notable for such, city mayor candidates are not such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Johnpacklambert. Definitely fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 16:47, 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) 11:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calliflower[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An unremarkable product from a small private company; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is PR-driven, routine corporate news, or passing mentions such as in Forbes blog ([17]). First AfD closed as no consensus due to low participation; the only "Keep" vote was from the article's creator (Special:Contributions/Slbedford) with no other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 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 08:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Excesive unsourced information and lack of coverage to establish notability. Many of the sources included in the article do not mention the company. The Forbes or CNET articles for example. The WSJ is a broken link. Only two WP:RS CBS News and financial post seem to be valid and do contribute to its notability, but unless more can be found this by itself is not enough. If more sources are found the article should be neutralized. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rhadow (talk) 12:10, 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. Not only is there a unanimous consensus to delete, the article itself is a copyvio. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Naidanow[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability, no third-party references. Proposed deletion was removed by article's creator. Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cites the traditional do-no-cites of Soundcloud and Discogs, which present content that is generated by the article subject. Also cites the subject's website. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search turned up some more self-published-type sources, but zero independent coverage. Fails WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not only fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, but the whole article, both text and photo, are copyvio from the artist's own website: [18] Richard3120 (talk) 20:30, 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) 21:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb Song[edit]

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

Non-notable single by obscure band, no reliable sources, fails WP:NMG and WP:GNG. Jellyman (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks notability as not meeting our notability standards. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 13:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NSONGS... looking at the rest of the articles related to the band Captain Everything!, I don't think a single one of them passes notability. Richard3120 (talk) 20:21, 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) f e minist 09:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Night Things (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND JMHamo (talk) 09:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that they were formerly known as Badlands. I found an article in LA Weekly and briefer coverage on Stereogum and Pitchfork, which together nearly meets WP:GNG. Their debut album is due for release this summer, so the article may be slightly premature. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep as does have reliable source coverage for WP:GNG such as LA Weekly here, NPR here and Pitchfork Atlantic306 (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 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 07:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 13:30, 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 no consensus. Closing as no consensus. The first keep !vote states (in part), "Notability is guarenteed [sic] for significant community infrastructure like this", but no sources were provided to qualify this stance. The second keep !vote is similar, but this user did add sources to the article starting at 15:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC) (see Revision history). However, nobody else has analyzed those source additions other than the user who added them. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLK Super Speciality Hospital[edit]

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

no sources for notability DGG ( talk ) 07:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is one of the larger, long established since 1959 hospitals in a major city. Notability is guarenteed for significant community infrastructure like this. It's not likely the hospital cares if they have a page here so it's not promo spam like so much of what we see. Legacypac (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep as per User:Legacypac. Article need to be WP:FIXIT instead of deletion. --Elton-Rodrigues 15:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found references Google News, see if they can work. Adding some refs from there. --Elton-Rodrigues 15:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 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 07:01, 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 relevent guideline I was referencing is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Hospitals For future reference Legacypac (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kuri, Bushehr[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIR, Wikipedia should not be an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of geographical places -- Prisencolin (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This does appear to be an actual village [19] and it is legally recognized. As per WP:GEOLAND, there is no such thing as a non-notable population center. --Oakshade (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 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 06:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are no agreed notability criteria for populated places. So no good reason to delete. 1-555-confide (talk) 13:02, 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 no consensus. No further discussion of the sources mentioned and whether they make the subject meet GNG despite relists. On a side note, per Wikipedia:Merging and WP:BEFORE you shouldn't bring articles to AfD if you only seek redirecting or merging. We have other channels for that. So Why 07:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baatein Ye Kabhi Na[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing specifically covering this song.All covg. in general film-song reviews.Singular coverage lonely in promotional writings.The critical reception section writes reviews of the songs from mostly WP:RS sections but WP:NSONGS says ... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created...; which is what is happening here.'Redirect and/or Merge to film article sought. Winged Blades^Godric 17:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:RS not met.-Umair Aj (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the critical reception of the article shows reviews by reliable sources Zee TV, India.com and there is also coverage by Indian Express so WP:GNG is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. Artw (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--How can't this be covered at the film article?Winged Blades^Godric 03:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--Pinging the participants of the prev. AfD.@Bharatiya29, SwisterTwister, and Dharmadhyaksha:Winged Blades^Godric 07:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily keep - Deserves a standalone article. The article has coverages from reliable sources like Indian Express India Today Zee News.It's a notable song Anoptimistix (talk)— Note to closing admin: Anoptimistix (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 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 1920: The Evil Returns. There was no consensus to keep the article, nor to delete it outright; the article creator !voted twice, both times with non-policy-based objections (equating popularity with notability, for example), while the delete !vote did not address the possibilities laid out under WP:ATD-R, as the nominator requested. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 10:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uska Hi Banana[edit]

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

Nothing specifically covering this song.All covg. in general film-sound-track reviews.Singular coverage lonely in promotional writings.The critical reception section writes reviews of the song from mostly WP:RS sections but WP:NSONGS says ... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created...; which is what is happening here.Koimoi et al fails WP:RS.Merge and/or Redirect to film article sought.Ping Cyphoidbomb as someone involved in the case. Winged Blades^Godric 17:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For general information more than 80 percent of notable song from India mostly in Hindi are from Bollywood films, because contrary to North America , India doesn't have a separate independent music sponsoring music industry of its own, so of course doesn't matter how much is the notbility of a song, a film associated with it will always get mentioned. It is one of the very notable song in India of the year 2012.19:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Anoptimistix (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Anoptimistix (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Typical WP:MILL covg.How can't this be covered at the film article?Winged Blades^Godric 03:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage and content seem sufficient for distinct article. Artw (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Artw::--Can you please provide the sources covering this song in detail?Winged Blades^Godric 06:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:RS.Umair Aj (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 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 06:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep : Major sources provides in-depth coverage to the song for passing WP:NSONG Anoptimistix Let's Talk 05:23, 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. A Train^talk 13:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thodi Der[edit]

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

Nothing specifically covering this song.All covg. in general film-sound-track reviews.Singular coverage lonely in promotional writings.The critical reception section writes reviews but WP:NSONGS says ... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created...; which is what is happening here.Youtube does not guarantee WP:GNG.Redirect to film article sought. Winged Blades^Godric 17:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep appears to scrape by on GNG. Artw (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article now have reliable coverage of the song by reputed Indian news media Times of India, as this is a Hindi film song, Times of India's reliable coverage will have some discussion about the film but focuses primarily on the song. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS.Anoptimistix (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Anoptimistix (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 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 06:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:RS, has serious issues of impartiality of tone and undue weight, peacocking.-Umair Aj (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ De-bolden and strike dup !vote at 08:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)by Winged Blades^Godric Article topic has coverage by "Goe News" Geo news is considered as a reputed reliable source after "Dawn in Pakistan. Geo news provides indepth coverage which makes the song worthy of having a Standalone article, thus it passes WP:RS as well as WP:NSONG. Further it also has deep coverage by India.com Anoptimistix Let's Talk 02:19, 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 2014 California wildfires. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monticello Fire[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS. There was only coverage in July 2014 when it happened and nothing more. There was also no lasting impact. SL93 (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The editor has created several of these types of articles. SL93 (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My reason for creating this article and articles like it is to archive significant fires that have happened in the state of California. The significance of this fire was its relation to several other wildfires in virtually the exact same area, including the very recent Winters fire which caused me to write the article. --DanEverett45 (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge key details to 2014 California wildfires. This fails WP:NEVENT in terms of lack of secondary source coverage beyond the time of the event, but the aforementioned article is readily suited to include nearly all the prose given here. --MASEM (t) 12:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 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 06:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets wp:GNG. And it seems useful, good. --do ncr am 18:23, 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 Speedy delete per A7. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duraid qureshi[edit]

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

The subject received some press coverage (namechecking) but i don't see him meeting the WP's notability criterial. Saqib (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You should have renamed the article Duraid Qureshi before you nominated it for deletion. This would have made the log more conspicuous: [20]. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 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 keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination does not assert that the subject is non-notable, instead positing notability as a question. No prejudice against speedy renomination with a valid deletion rationale. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liene Bērziņa[edit]

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

Notability? Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 05:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep SK#1 WP:NPASR Nothing to do here. Unscintillating (talk) 22:27, 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. Nomination withdrawn. WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but my main concerns were as a result of confusion by references not included on the page.(non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~I believe this to be a WP:HOAX.~~ The Spratly Islands page says there were no permanent settlements on the islands until 1956, and there's a variety of wild and unlikely claims in this page regarding settlements on the islands before 1956, mostly referenced to an AngelFire site. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it alone - your arguments are poor, and you provide no supporting evidence for your arguments or against the statements in the article. Meanwhile the article provides a link to a reliable source supporting the statements made in the article. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that you believe the page to be a hoax is insufficient justification to delete it, or even to nominate it for deletion. You need to supply some evidence.
- The page never suggests or claims that Meads or anyone related to him ever settled in the Spratly Islands - simply that he/they claimed them and their resources.
- What are the "wild and unlikely claims in this page regarding settlements on the islands before 1956"?
- Which is the AngelFire site that is referenced?

Comment http://www.angelfire.com/ri/songhrati/history.html was the site. The more incredible historical claims generally are sourced to an affidavit from 1971. While I (and the sources) feel the accuracy of that is questionable, it's not a WP:HOAX. That said, I'm not convinced the article's other flaws can be repaired through editing. Power~enwiki (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thanks for the link. However, you continue to make unsubstantiated claims and statements, and not explain the unsubstantiated claims and statements that you have previously made. Please explain yourself. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You say you feel that the accuracy is questionable. The accuracy of what? (I can't see any obvious inaccuracies in the article.)
- You say "I'm not convinced the article's other flaws can be repaired through editing." I emphasise that you have yet to point out any flaws in the article.
- I remind you that what you think, feel and/or believe is insufficient justification to delete the article, or even to nominate it for deletion. You need to supply some evidence.
- I remind you that the article never suggests or claims that Meads or anyone related to him ever settled in the Spratly Islands - simply that he/they claimed them and their resources.
- I also remind you that the article provides a link to a reliable source supporting the statements made in the article. You don't seem to be paying due regard this.
- Also, have you read the previous deletion debates?
- So far all I can see from you is WP:I just don't like it, and I can't work out just what it is you are objecting to, much less why you think the article should be deleted.
- By-the-way: What does the AngelFire reference have to do with this discussion? (It is not mentioned in the article.)
- What historical claims are you referring to?
- Which 1971 affidavit?
  - Post-script: I've just had a look at http://www.angelfire.com/ri/songhrati/history.html Thanks for the entertainment. I'm astounded to discover that someone (anyone?) would go to so much effort to create a set of web pages that I would classify as nonsense bearing no relationship to either reality or the contents of the wikipedia article. I'm glad that there are other more reliable sources that we can draw upon. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Micronations are an interesting (if slightly bizarre) subject, typically unrecognised by anyone else. I have not looked at the sources, but am assuming verifiability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 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. Michig (talk) 07:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanath Sivaraj[edit]

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

Non-notable person with only a single film credit as an editor. Fails WP:BIO. Sources do meet WP:VER, but make limited or trivial mention of the subject. SamHolt6 (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable indiviual, no evidence of his career as a filmmaker or actor and no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to support general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable film-maker. Probably created as part of getting some legitimacy by virtue of having a Wikipedia page. Jupitus Smart 09:40, 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 speedy deletion (G4). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mahabbat pur vice city[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable film.fails WP:NFILM. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The previous AfD was closed just 2 months back so I tagged the article to be speedily deleted per G4. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: This article has been deleted by AfD consensus and this is the second subsequent repost by the same author, still without evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 06:46, 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.

[1] ttp://www.businessinsider.com/ap-the-latest-syrian-government-kurds-reach-truce-in-hasakeh-2016-8?r=US&IR=T&IR=T

[2] ttps://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/us-backed-forces-in-syria-enter-raqqa-s-old-city-1.91913

[3] ttps://apnews.com/e4b8e76876d149a8a1dd62fef1a5aff0/us-backed-syrian-forces-set-sights-valley-north-raqqa

[4] ttp://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/oct/05/syrias-military-to-reduce-airstrikes-for-aleppo-ev/#/0

[5] ttps://books.google.fi/books?id=7kYlDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT352&lpg=PT352&dq=hawar+news+agency+United+Nation&source=bl&ots=szDRIHuWtS&sig=yzqrITIy7WNqVeXhEJUfMrLkw3I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj02prrkvXUAhVKb1AKHSiaCxgQ6AEITDAH#v=onepage&q=hawar%20news%20agency%20United%20Nation&f=false

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]