Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 July	26 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Imma treat the lone keep !vote as "delete" seeing as that is the main thrust of the policy grounded arguments in it Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Rainford[edit]

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

Originally CSD tagged by an IP, which I declined because the article has been around for over ten years and I don't like making unilateral decisions like that. However, I can hardly find any independent coverage of Mr. Rainford; the only sources that mention him at all are quotes about PassGo, which is itself apparently not notable enough for an article, so I am really struggling to see how Rainford could be. — Earwig ^talk 21:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a corporate executive with no indication of notability.--Rpclod (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, only mentions in business press and press releases from the companies he's been involved with. Qwfp (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear violation of WP:NOTPROMOTION created by a WP:SPA. The subject also fails to meet the WP:GNG and WP:BIO, the only coverage I can find of him is shallow. His name is hard to Google, but it seems Passgo was the most notable thing he did. His article will always live on on youtube [1]. - GretLomborg (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GretLomborg: was your above vote intended to be a "Delete" by chance? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Belcher[edit]

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

PROD declined by article creator without giving a reason. Non-notable individual, fails WP:GNG and any other project guideline. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to pass WP:GNG with news in the Seattle Times.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this discussion probably needs to be included in deletion discussion lists for baseball and broadcasting... I only have a moment now, can someone else do that?--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article was nominated for deletion five hours after creation. It has now been expanded. In my view, article now passes WP:GNG, ~~if barely,~~ and given the nature of his position (the top sports broadcaster in Seattle during the 1960s), access to archives of the Seattle newspapers from that era would almost certainly turn up a lot more. Cbl62 (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paulmcdonald and Cbl62. Good-faith article expansion has improved the article to the point where it meets WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:26, 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) 19:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amna Nawaz Khan[edit]

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

Not many sources to show his notability. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage in RS. fails to meet WP:AUTHOR. --Saqib (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No verifiable indication that establishes notability under WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just van Rossum[edit]

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

non recognized as per encyclopedia standard or make one article Erik van Blokland Light2021 (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find a brief mention in The New York Times: [2] and a few other in blogs but not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to meet WP:GNG or any indication that it meets WP:BIO. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough significant coverage in RS for WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by CambridgeBayWeather. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 01:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mohammad Abbas Rizvi[edit]

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

not notable person under wikipedia gidelines. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt per WP:CSD#A7. Ajf773 (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Steckel[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability established. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:56, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elnur Kelbizadeh[edit]

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

Not notable local educator Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until some impact on GS is found. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing suggests that WP:NACADEMIC notability criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no establishment of notability. The account that created and wrote the article was created specifically for this purpose. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Run of the mill academic, fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 11:18, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Drille[edit]

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

subject fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. His career has not been extensively discussed by reliable secondary sources. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 05:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 05:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 05:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject of this article hasn't been discussed in significant detail. I agree with the nominator that the article is WP:TOOSOON. The subject has released a number of singles, but none of them have been discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent or authoritative references are provided, let alone anything that demonstrates that WP:ENTERTAINER criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ren Game[edit]

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

Non-notable unreferenced stub on a foreign-language computer game whose domain appears to have been taken over by cyber-squatters, according to my reading of google translate. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability or, indeed, existence. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources found with WP:VG/RS custom search. Fails WP:GNG, and possibly WP:V outright. -- ferret (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as can't even find any 3rd party coverage reporting this in the six years since the article was created. Just another non-notable online game. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:03, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Straight from the Lab[edit]

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

Bootleg release, nothing in the sources (fansite?) provided indicate that this was an official release. Karst (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simply being a bootleg album should not be grounds for deletion. Other bootleg albums have articles (see Kum Back, Live'r Than You'll Ever Be, The Dark Side of the Moo, etc.). The article documents not just the album itself but the notable leaking of it. The album is notable (WP:NALBUM) because it has entries on AllMusic, complex.com, discogs.com, Amazon OneRPM. Also, the first 4 books in Google's search result have direct mentions of it. Other mentions can be found via the 'Find sources' links (just make sure you add "Eminem" to the search query). The article is long standing (left undisturbed for 9 years). The bootleg exists and we should document its existence instead of pretending it doesn't exist.Terrorist96 (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, in my view. In addition to Allmusic and Complex, there are a pair of MTV write-ups [3][4] which I added to the article that go into a fair amount of detail and can help to further expand the page. gongshow talk 01:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bassim Ali[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article claims that the subject took part in the 2014 WAFF Championship, which if he did would mean he passes WP:NFOOTY. But a closer look at the match report for Iraq's two games (1 & 2) show that Bassim Ali himself never actually came off the bench in any of the games. With no above routine coverage subject fails WP:GNG as well. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:45, 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 merge to Buster (comics)#Absorbed titles. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 02:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

School Fun[edit]

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

No Citations whatsoever and no evidence what the article suggests exists BSOleader (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, there is some "evidence" -- in the article's Toonhound.com external link. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely existed, [5][6][7][8]. It's perhaps not the most notable publication but there are enough sources for a decent article. – Joe (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the publication dates and number of issues to Buster (comics)#Absorbed titles. I found sources that confirmed existence, but nothing that showed notability. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, [rge [Special:CentralAuth/Jo-Jo Eumerus|contributions]]) 19:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability. So far its prior existence appears to be the argument for maintaining, but that is not enough.--Rpclod (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC). Merge or re-direct are good options.--Rpclod (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Buster (comics) which mentions School Fun's merger with Buster. A lack of coverage in reliable sources. Google Books shows its existence and merger is mentioned in The Ultimate Book of British Comics by Graham Kibble-White, Allison & Busby, 2005, but it's only in snippet view. At most there might be a few notices in specialist press of that era, but as it stands there's no references and nothing to show notability - and no referenced content to merge. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Buster (comics) unless more sources can be found. Artw (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then redirect as suggested above. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:08, 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. At this point, consensus is in favor of deletion, however, DESiegel, once you have access to more sources, I see no reasons here for you not to restore the article to work on it (let's call it a "somewhat soft delete"). Regards So Why 14:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Engelson[edit]

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

An article on this person was previously deleted at AfD, and I tagged it for a G4 speedy deletion, as this article, though containing different references, was in my opinion sufficiently identical to the previous article to warrant speedy deletion. The G4 tag was removed, so here we are. I still don't think that the references provide sufficient in-depth sources to support the notability of the person. Deor (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sufficiently notable in his own right. Eagleash (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources cited were not only different in detail, but different in type. The previous sources all dealt with his divorce and his other romantic relationships, and the concern expressed in the first AfD was that he was being mentioned only for those relationships, which were irrelevant as per WP:NOTINHERITED. The sources in the current version all deal with his work as a film producer, a very different thing, thus addressing the issues raised in the first AfD. Thus G4 did not apply, in my judgement, which was why I declined it. But of course a declined speedy does not establish notability -- that is what this discussion is for. Deor, did you do a WP:BEFORE search before nominating this? If so, what search terms did you use and what did you find? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did do some searching before my nomination; and although this source seems to be possibly a significant mention, I didn't find anything that would justify the existence of the article. Most of the possible sources appear to involve his connection to Meghan Markle, which was considered in the previous AfD. Deor (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would call that more than a "mention", it looks to be a fairly significant discussion of the "Underground Films" business and Engelson's role in it. There also seems to be a story from The New York Observer dated January 16, 2006 a partial view of which can be found at this page which should count toward notability -- it is from a RS, and seems entirely devoted to Engelson in his role as a businessman, not as a husband or lover. I am trying to get full access. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:09, 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 06:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sufficiently notable in his own right. ~Geaugagrrl^talk 21:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: waiting for the source DES has
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'comment I had applied for access to highbeam via Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. They have been in the midst of changing their systems, and applications have been delayed in consequence. I have no more than what is listed above, in particular the partial display at https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-140835421.html which i linked to above. And of course http://variety.com/2011/film/news/underground-films-management-duo-split-1118041935/ also mentioned above. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is:

http://deadline.com/2011/08/nick-osborne-and-trevor-engelson-splitting-at-underground-films-management-164466/ but that is fairly brief
https://www.allstarbio.com/trevor-engelson-biography-birthday-height-weight-ethnicity-girlfriend-wife-affair-marital-status-net-worth-fact-full-details/ is a bit superficial
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/underground-films-high-school-mentorship-takes-aim-at-hollywood-diversity-944158 is of some value, in my view
Roger Ebert's Movie Yearbook 2011 describes Remember Me, which Engleson produced, as "a well made movie" but takes issue with the general theme of the film. See https://books.google.com/books?id=zXQqF1qFnjsC&pg=PT990

None as good as i think the observer article would be. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficiently notable in his own right; maybe just too soon. Quis separabit? 12:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RS Technologies Inc.[edit]

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

Zero WP:RS. Fails WP:NCORP with no in-depth coverage that I could find. shoy (reactions) 19:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 19:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 19:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 19:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 19:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article currently serves only to promote the history and products of the company. Lack of in depth sources means the article fails WP:CORPDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- basically a G11, with content on how the company "ships its patented poles..." etc. No sources in the article and none found to sustain an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 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. The consensus is clearly to keep this article. The only delete !vote is in fact the nomination, which is in any case partially flawed, as "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed"- as, indeed, would be a Pakistani military site, if per WP:PRIMARY. Ignoring the sock !votes, the majority of the concerns were regarding style rather than notability, which was at least suggested, and possibly established, many days ago. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 13:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mujahida Hussain Bibi[edit]

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

Some notability exists as recipient of Sitara-e-Jurat, but I didn't find any English references beside Pakistan military site. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Does her gender make her notable in a male-dominated society?--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the first female recipient of an honour, which is clearly notable. Needs a serious rewrite though. Terrible article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Facts In Pakistan , Females are more encouraged and have more respect than Men .Mujahida Hussain Bibi, is the first female who is registered as soilder in Pak Army and got this nobility.Abdulrehmanb8631 (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2017 (GMT+5)— Abdulrehmanb8631 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
keep Mujahida Hussain bibi ...These sources and references are correct.
References:

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4]

References

^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV8aPFPrVec%7Ctitle = Mujahida Hussain Bibi First Female Sitara-e-Jurat of Pakistan
^ https://www.facebook.com/pg/muj.hussainbibi/about/
^ http://hilal.gov.pk/index.php/layouts/item/1997-mujahida-hussain-bibi-the-first-female-sitara-e-jurat-of-pakistan
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitara-e-Jurat

keep Nobility proved.Miltary source is correct.Bol336 (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)— Bol336 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: G'day, I had a go at cleaning up the article somewhat, removing the inappropriate inline citations to Wikipedia, copy editing and adding some links. I don't know much about the era, though, so I can't do too much more with it, I'm afraid. It still needs work, and I would like to see the referencing improved if it is kept (including removal of the Facebook ref). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But see also WP:FACEBOOK Rupert. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is her name in Urdu? That might help us find more hits. I tagged the talkpage with WP:Pakistan, so hopefully more eyes can look at it. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Psutka[edit]

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

Per WP:NSPORT. With the baseball info it is pretty clear he did not play professionally, with the hockey info, the leagues were back before the NHL was established (I think?). In addition, the article doesn't establish any sort of notability other then the fact that he played sports, and maybe had the middle name "Jerome." Comatmebro (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another article that fails GNG created by User:Alexsautographs. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Errrm ... the subject most certainly did play professionally, and the NHL was founded eleven years before his birth. But that being said, a single season of AHL play doesn't remotely meet WP:NHOCKEY, and NBASE doesn't provide presumptive notability to any minor-league baseball player, no matter how long or illustrious his career. The subject, having an ephemeral career as a mediocre part-time player never playing higher than Class-A minor-league ball, doesn't come close. Ravenswing 22:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable minor league athlete....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mentholatum. Restoring the redirect seems to be an agreed upon way to handle this. If someone wants to expand it into a stand-alone article, they can still do it. So Why 13:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Heat (heat rub)[edit]

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

Not notable, little coverage online, this article seems promotional more than anything. NikolaiHo^☎️ 20:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one product of a company. Not notable in itself.PRehse (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A perfectly reasonable redirect by @Gaijin42: was rejected by an IP account for no reason, valid or otherwise. Delete or redirect Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Our house generally has a tub of Deep Heat lying around in either the bedroom or the bathroom; unfortunately this is one of those cases where a well-known and recognisable product doesn't come up in sources so much. The mentions in this search do suggest it's a household name, though. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore previous redirect. It's not a terribly useful redirect because it's unlikely somebody would type this awkward phrase into a search box. It seems to exist mostly to service the Deep Heat WP:DAB page. Redirects are WP:CHEAP, so I can't get too worked up over a pointless redirect, but deleting it outright wouldn't be a terrible result. If it does get deleted, fix up the DAB page to point to the right place. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. Nothing indicates that this product is notable. No authoritative references are provided.--Rpclod (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:14, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Miguel Quezada Sánchez[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - there is some coverage of this player online (see here, here & here) but overall it is mostly trivial and is more concerning the player's Dominican origin than anything else. Overall it just feels a bit too much like WP:TOOSOON. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reserve level footballer who has yet to achieve anything of note. TOSOON, no GNG coverage and fails subject specific N guidelines ClubOranje^T 11:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is in the Real squad for the 2017 International Champions Cup and the 2017 MLS All-Star Game. He played against Manchester United in the ICC, took a free kick that nearly beat de Gea, and was the only Real player to score in the penalty shoot-out. A small amount of info here and here. --Scolaire (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment the ICC is a preseason 'friendly' tournament so appearance in that tournament does not satisfy requirements of NFOOTY ClubOranje^T 10:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article is WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG, as he has never made an appearance in a fully professional league, has never made a senior international appearance, and has no solid independent notability. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Article is WP:TOOSOON, and can easily be recreated if an when he becomes notable. Edwardx (talk) 11:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. May never make it. Until then. scope_creep (talk) 14:22, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amchi Mumbai[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Created by paid editor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-WP:SOAPBOX non-notable television show. FITINDIA 17:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no show of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 14:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Family's Slave[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This article received a lot of press in May and June for its publication as the June 2017 cover story ... and now what? Enduring notability is not verified. Yoninah (talk) 14:48, 25 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 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep I'm afraid I don't understand the deletion rationale. It's a new book, yes, but one that seems to rather easily meet criterion 1 of WP:NBOOK. And notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The nominator is bemoaning the lack of reviews... from the future? It meets WP:N now, which is all it needs to. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a book, it's an article. Does every cover story in the Atlantic merit a Wikipedia page? Of course not. At best, it should be merged to the author's page, Alex Tizon. Yoninah (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, missed that, sorry. Yes, an article is going to have have a much tougher time in terms of justifying a standalone article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and as it has not (yet) been published in book form, I've removed Category:Works originally published in The Atlantic (magazine) in favour of Category:The Atlantic (magazine) articles. There are several other articles in that category but of course this one needs to be judged on its own merits, regardless of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the categories. All the other articles listed under Category:The Atlantic (magazine) articles have many more years under their belt and the Wikipedia pages explain why they are of lasting significance. Yoninah (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is a highly notable work that received tons of worldwide media coverage (both positive and negative) and sparked significant debate in several countries when it was published as the main cover story of The Atlantic earlier this year, and this nomination comes very close to a frivolous nomination. The article obviously meets WP:GNG as the subject of "significant coverage [that] addresses the topic directly and in detail." --Tataral (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Yoninah's concern is clearly WP:SUSTAINED in addition to citing WP:NOTNEWS. My response, I suppose, is that we have no crystal ball with which to gauge that, now. So I'd default to GNG for something that does clearly have enough coverage, at this time, with anyone free to revisit this at a later date -- but keeping in mind WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is met. WP:NTEMP. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG.--DynaGirl (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree, keep it. There were Millions of events that were notable at some point but are not now. Chrisswill (talk) 22:23, 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 Keep, no valid deletion argument has been put forward for deleting the article. The only thing is someone claiming to be the subject says they don't like it. . ~ GB fan 19:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Atley[edit]

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

This is a personal page with wrong information. Jack Atley no longer works as a professional photographer. Jack Atley is not a race car driver. Jackatley (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the Jack Atley that is a former professional photographer and the Jack Atley that raced cars are different people? Or are you saying it is the same person and that he doesn't do either of these things now? ~ GB fan 12:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is asking to have this page deleted for personal reasons unclear to anyone? Jack Atley is no longer working as a professional photographer and has not done so for at least 3 years. He is not a race car driver and does not do this either. Yet this page remains up and on Google. Jack Atley has personally asked that this page be removed from Wikipedia as it is not only not relevant to him professionally anymore, it is also potentially damaging to him professionally now. There is no legal obligation for Atley to have a Wikipedia page. And especially one that is out of date and irrellevant. Yet people who have never met him, spoken to him or contacted him in any way are keeping this page up - even after he expressly asked for it to be deleted. Please delete this page and move on.

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 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fix or delete According to this it is one and the same person who does / did / has done both. Perhaps this article needs either a prune to absolutely BLP verifiable facts or a request for deletion by the actual person the article is about if it cannot be fixed up. As a photographer the person easily passes GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 13:09, 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 03:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no valid rationale for deletion has been given by anyone. I have removed all unsourced claims per WP:BLP which should make it a bit easier to judge. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give people a chance to re-evaluate the article after Ritchie333's edits.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is asking to have this page deleted for personal reasons unclear to anyone? Jack Atley is no longer working as a professional photographer and has not done so for at least 3 years. He is not a race car driver and does not do this either. Yet this page remains up and on Google. Jack Atley has personally asked that this page be removed from Wikipedia as it is not only not relevant to him professionally anymore, it is also potentially damaging to him professionally now. There is no legal obligation for Atley to have a Wikipedia page. And especially one that is out of date and irrellevant. Yet people who have never met him, spoken to him or contacted him in any way are keeping this page up - even after he expressly asked for it to be deleted. Please delete this page and move on.

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Kochanauskas[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per WP:G11 by User:Brookie. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2e Bureau[edit]

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

Company that fails WP:N by lack of coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. All the coverage that exists appears to be of a French military unit (or French military related subject with the same name.) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:06, 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. Consensus is clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Wound[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article doesn't have any references, appears never to have had any and contains original research. It is the subject of debate as to whether or not it should be deleted. If it were a subject I were an expert in I would say no objection but perhaps the medical category needs this article to be there. If it does then the article requires referencing asap. If not then I'm pretty sure that this is an uncontraversial proposal for deletion. Edaham (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wonder if it might be legal jargon rather than medical. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comment good point. This would certainly lend a point to its continued existence here. It also opens up a variety of places to look for sources. It might also be a term used in military documentation in some places or points throughout history. This could also be an area where digging for sources might be appropriate. Many thanks. Edaham (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that being said, we have to do more than simply find sources defining it. We aren't a dictionary, and while there are some parts of the definition of this term which might be useful for clarifying it, I can't (so far) find anything worth more than a couple of sentences in another article on a related subject. I.e.

https://thelegaldictionary.org/dictionary/mortal-wound/
http://research.omicsgroup.org/index.php/Mortal_wound (incidentally the source from which large parts of the article are plagerized - but not cited)

Edaham (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://research.omicsgroup.org/index.php/Mortal_wound appears to be copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around; right down to the tag "This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2009)" TJRC (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with Delete. It's a phrase, and not one that has any sort of "official" status that needs to be defined. Do medical diagnostics or procedures change based on whether something is a "mortal wound" or just a "wound," for example?

It's not a legal term. I know of no law that depends on this. It's not listed in my copy of Black's Law Dictionary. ("Mortal" is, and uses the phrase in passing: "Destructive to life; causing or occasioning death; exposing to or deserving death, especially spiritual death; deadly; fatal, as, a mortal wound [emphasis added], or mortal sin; of or pertaining to time of death.")

I just don't see any basis of notability to retain an article on this phrase; and the WP:OR is just icing on that cake. TJRC (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Mortal Wound and Mortally wounded redirect to this article, and would need to be deleted and links cleaned up if this article is deleted. TJRC (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing evidence it is an encyclopedic topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete I've been swayed fully to what I suspected in the first place that this definition of a phrase doesn't warrant its own article. However since it's still up, I will delete some of the unsourced material and add the source so it at least looks like it falls within stub guidelines while it's still up. Edaham (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with deleting this article. The purpose of it is served by a dictionary definition of the word 'mortal', anyone interested in 'mortal wound' should find sufficient information there. Michael Dacre (talk - contribs - email) 21:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

It looks like we have a consensus, but the article is still present. How long does this process take? Is it my responsibility as the person who put this article forward to take the results somewhere? Edaham (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Still a few hours short. Don't worry, there is no deadline. TJRC (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for replying. I have not engaged in this process before. Edaham (talk) 08:39, 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. So Why 13:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarfo Twumasi Bernard[edit]

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

Non notable 19 year old programmer/Start-up founder. All the references are either dead or WP:UGC and anyway from non reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Jupitus Smart 15:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can't treat this as WP:SOFTDELETE due to failed PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The PROD was removed probably by an IP probably belonging to the said person. That should not ideally hold this back from deletion. Jupitus Smart 09:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BIO. Overly promotional. LibStar (talk) 09:47, 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. A Train^talk 18:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of Turkey (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This is not a valid disambiguation page Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cut down to the Ottoman and Turkish Republic entries, both of whose military histories can reasonably be known as "Military history of Turkey". ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a disambig page, with certain rules. If someone wants to trace whole history under, above, and beyond, they must write a comprehensive article. Take History of Poland for an example. There is no History of Poland (disambiguation) to list from History of Poland during the Piast dynasty via History of Poland (1795–1918) up to History of Poland (1989–present). Staszek Lem (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's already Military history of the Republic of Turkey and List of wars involving the Ottoman Empire, and the rest violates what a dab page is supposed to be. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks a pretty clear case of an unnecessary disambiguation page. The title should refer to the military history of the Republic of Turkey, and possibly to that of the Ottoman Empire (which was never called Turkey but some people know by that name). There's no need for a disambiguation page when a hatnote is the way of handling it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dab page, Military history of Turkey→Military history of the Republic of Turkey, hatnote for Ottoman Empire Pariah24 (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, this is really a set index article, not a dab page, so it really shouldn't be treated as such. A navigational list of all the various periods of history might actually be helpful. Pariah24 (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary dab page.L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 17:31, 2 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 deleted A7 by Brookie. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 18:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AdCoin[edit]

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

Article about a new cryptocurrency. Available sources are blogs with mostly of trivial coverage, and press release type articles. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. - Mr X 11:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ahmad Jamal Bokhari[edit]

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

Created by user after his draft was declined as it fails WP criterea. This fails WP:ACADEMICS and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Citations seems too low for a professor at Yale. Is he? Xxanthippe (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete I've checked in Gbooks and Gscolorshors where his name has appeared in few publications but I am not satisfied that he would meet the WP's notability requirement. Because of non-notable career, i would ask for week delete it. --Saqib (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF. I assume his professorship at Yale is based on medical practice more than scholarship, but that's not something we can base an article here on. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:03, 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 deleted A7 by Brookie. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 18:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swoosh English[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable educational company; the only reliable source I could find online is a brief mention and is not really about the company itself. The rest are promotional websites and job listings. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:40, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarwech Sujawali[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The following sources indicate he was a notable Sindhi poet: Dawn The News Business Recorder. To avoid any bias, we should also consult Sindhi sources rather than relying on English ones alone. Mar4d (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems like he was famous poet per news articles provided above, but he doesn't seems to have coverage in English language RS. I suggest we should keep this one. --Saqib (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Master Chander[edit]

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

Dubious sources. Search produces nothing. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to have been covered in multiple Book sources (although mostly snippet view) as a Sindhi singer. [9] Can easily be sustained at a stub level even after the unsourced cruft is removed. Mar4d (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mar4d. --Saqib (talk) 12:43, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gobind Malhi[edit]

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

Full of dubious sources. No article on Sindhi Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG and WP:WRITER. Greenbörg (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep found two news stories in DAWN which nameching the subject. [10], [11]. perhaps these demonstrate the some notability of the subject? --Saqib (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib:Because he is Sindhi, he can get margin. I withdraw the nomination. Greenbörg (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nabi Bux G. Qazi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note ~~Haven't yet checked if the subject meets notability requirement, but in any case this one should be speedy deleted because of copyvio.~~ --Saqib (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: From where this is copied? Greenbörg (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am seems to be mistaken. That page which I initially thought is origin of the material posted on WP page is actually found to be a mirror of WP. Anyways, you could had speedy deleted this per Wikipedia:BLPPROD because there is no source at all. --Saqib (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i couldn't found anything in RS. the subject doesn't seems to be a notable person. he had served on a few government posts but not a notable career IMO. There is a claim "He wrote enormous research papers", so if someone prove it, I may change my !vote.--Saqib (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources on which to base an article, regardless of merit. Google book search for "N. B. G. Qazi" finds things by him, and brief snippets about him, but not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:01, 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 keep. As pointed out in the discussion below, the article now contains a fair number of significant third-party sources that satisfy the notability guidelines for inclusion. Most of the arguments to delete claim the article is promotional. While it is true that the coverage in the article is positive, this seems to be a reflection of the quality and notoriety of the brewery for producing good beer. If every reliable source describes the brewery in glowing terms, the article will reflect this to some extent. As for a promotional tone--yes this needed to be improved, but in the current state the article is not so bad as to be un-salvageable. My reading of consensus is that the arguments for inclusion based on the notability guidelines are stronger than the deletion arguments based on promotional nature. Malinaccier (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upslope Brewing Company[edit]

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

very small and unimportant brewing company, with only the usual press releases and notices for references, and no reason to expect anything better. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't vouch for how well known this company really is, but if the nominator's main rationale is a lack of real references, that's misleading. On the article, there are currently all these references:

References [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

This is a considerable number of external sources, so it seems there has been significant coverage. --Hameltion (speak, spoken) 04:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:AUD. In addition to the sources in the article, a WP:BEFORE search provides the following book sources, which provide significant coverage about the topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Colorado Breweries. pp. 183–185.
Beer Lover's Colorado. pp. 70–72.
The Great American Ale Trail (Revised Edition). pp. 158–159.
Zymurgy, Volume 33 (paywalled)

Keep Per this list, Upslope's production is now triple what is indicated in the article, it is now the 7th largest craft brewery in Colorado (one of the hubs of U.S. craft beer production). caknuck _° needs to be running more often 04:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. The sourcing seems to be there on this one. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the all the posted sources are promotional: 1 is a local indiscriminate newspaper about their business activities, 2 is the same except in a different publisher, 3 is a local newspaper reporting they will be opening a new location there (business activities), 4-7 are all company statements about their products and distributing them therefore all of them violate WP:ORGIND and WP:CORP which says: Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, routine notices of facility openings or closings, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources or passing mention". This perfectly fits both the article and sources and it wouldn't be in the best interests to accept them here. Also, WP:AUD is immediately after this section which cited what we use and what not to use, so its audience is not relevant to our regards of sources, because the sources actually show the company is fueling their own PR. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might I add that Northamerica1000 also found many book sources that haven't been added to the article. Credible sources do exist, the article just isn't using them right now. That's not grounds for deletion. --Hameltion (speak, spoken) 17:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also: WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The books posted above actually have the repeated word "guide" even on the front page cover, so it violates WP:Not guide, regardless of the information being significant or facts. Also, to actually quote the WP:NEXIST, it says requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources so if I easily found the sources are still primary sources or guides, it cannot suitable independent, reliable sources. Before actually mentions the importance of this too. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found several articles from the Boulder Daily Camera: [19], [20] and [21]. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 23:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTGUIDE refers to Wikipedia articles, not book sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the point here is that books labelled Guides... are likely to be mere listings or directories, such as travel guides. And all the local refs are just that--the student newsper just loisted is the epitome of coverage that does not make anything notable . DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first three book sources I posted above provide fairly comprehensive overviews of the company, its history and its products. None of them are mere directory listings. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Actually WP:Not guide says it applies to ‘’’all contents’’’, not only articles or sources and, the first words in the books clearly state “guide” (1st: “This comprehensive guide covers all aspects of beer”, 2nd: “These comprehensive guides cover the entire beer experience’ and 3rd: “Homebrewing guide”. As for the sources, #1 is promotional, and actually a local newspaper to the company itself, with If you go: What: Upslope Get Down When: 1-11 p.m. Saturday, May 16 Where: Flatiron Park, 1898 S. Flatiron Court, Boulder Tickets: Free, but $55 VIP passes available Info: 303-449-2911 or upslopegetdown.com Related: 2015 Get Down Dragonfly's Ethiopian Yirgacheffe Coffee with a complementary base beer that enhances the light, berry-forward flavors of the coffee with an earthy sweetness and caramel undertones. It's an exceptional and unexpected pairing that's currently available on draft in the Lee Hill taproom. From just a handful of staff and two core beers served from the tiny original taproom, building a large new production brewery and taproom in Flatiron Park and expanding distribution to include five states, as of this week; it's a remarkable success story driven by a passion for brewing quality beer. The schedule is....with $5 drink....Admission is free. The VIP bar will serve several rare beers and special projects, such as a Japanese Dry Lager brewed with toasted rice and a hint of jasmine therefore it instantly violates WP:Not guide, both information and sources. Following is, of course the same local publisher in its “local business section”, UpSlope Brewing announces ambitious expansion into Boulder Junction....Boulder, UpSlope Brewing is planning a major new facility that will allow it to test new ingredients, new processes and new ideas, all in the heart of a major transit-oriented development in central Boulder….his company decided to embark on an expansion after being briefed.... and all of that is clear primary information ‘’and’’ and sources so it’s unacceptable for even GNG. The 3rd is no different with, again the local newspaper, Brewer Alex Violette says that it was a point of pride when he made an exceptionally good batch....his company decided to embark on an expansion after being briefed....Violette's American light lager — brewed with 100 percent malted barley and Czech Saaz hops — is even paler in color with a clean, crisp flavor that will be immediately recognizable to most beer drinkers....Retaining the pilot system and experimenting with a variety of taproom-only beers such as Upslope American light lager not only keeps the brewers' creative juices flowing....Sometimes the customer response drives the decision to more broadly distribute a beer. WP:Before itself says to ensure sources are independent and reliable so, to repeat WP:What Wikipedia is not, we are not an extension for company webhosting and it’s clear the supposed news were used for exactly that. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On WP:NOTGUIDE: This states that "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal". This has nothing to do with references or establishing notability. It means that unnecessary details, like the price of things, should not be included in articles. The sources can still be guides, as long as they're reliable and independent. --Hameltion (speak, spoken) 17:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See that same section which begins an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, cookbook, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not therefore it still applies to articles, not only sources. SwisterTwister talk 21:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's clear this is far too promotional for meaningful improvements given both concerns in information and sources we shouldn't be defending such unconvincing material for an independent encyclopedia. Take for example, the sources found here and here as they consist of either announcements, local listings, event guides, press releases, interviews, indiscriminate "local favorites" lists, etc. (1-30 so far and that's simply counting trade publications or local) and none of that ensures our own neutrality in articles. The nomination is founded in our deletion policies and that's all we ever need for deletion, no matter if it satisfies suggestive "article guidelines". As seen before, it's usually obvious once the best results given are only PR-intent as that will be a good sign what the nature of sources actually is and how eager their hired promotion agency is to work for their clients, but of course that's not what Wikipedia is about here. SwisterTwister talk 21:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources exist; and an article is written, including income for one year and the number of employees. The topic is a topic of interest to the world at large. Unscintillating (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- promotionalism for an non-notable company. Wikipedia is not a substitute for a company web site. The content is promotionalism and / or trivia, as in:

The company prefers aluminum cans to keep the product fresh and portable for the outdoors, for their ability to be recycled and to reduce fuel costs for delivery!
In 2013, Upslope Brewing Company held a fundraiser to benefit the Crest View Elementary School in North Boulder, which was adversely affected by the 2013 Colorado floods! (That's filed under "Charity".

An unremarkable local business. In any case, this content is excluded per WP:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: (...) It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." This article is 100% advertorial and there's nothing worth preserving here. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is rare that I am so evenly split between keep and delete, but this is one of those rare cases. I can understand the delete perspective, as right now the article clearly only promotes the company. That being said, having read the sources, I think it might pass GNG. So I'm split. However, if kept, there is a much larger issue with the article, and that's one of copyvio. As this copyvio report shows the current lead and production section are cut and paste from "COLORADO CRAFT BREWERS COMPANY INFORMATION". These sections need to be deleted or re-written as soon as possible, and then the old version revdel'd. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly promotional as are most of the sources. The award is, as usual, bogus - they won 1 of 250 awards. The award was from a local organization as are all but 1 source. Unremarkable local company. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They won a Best of Craft Beer silver medal[22] and a World Beer Cup bronze medal[23] in 2016, as well as a couple of NABA awards[24]. All of these are national or international awards. Also, the GABF is a national organization, and not local. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 08:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I updated and sourced their beer production - they are the #8 in Colorado, a beer mecca, but would be #2 in Indiana. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by Hameltion, Northamerica1000, and Caknuck. The company passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Here is a book source that provides extensive coverage about the subject:
1. Rabin, Dan (2014). Colorado Breweries. Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania: Stackpole Books. p. 183–185. ISBN 0811756181. Retrieved 2017-08-01.
  The book notes:
  It was a long uphill slog from conception to production for Upslope Brewing Company. The journey has led to a mountain of success for the Boulder brewery.
  In 1996, a year after becoming a homebrew hobbyist, Matt Cutter put together a business plan for a microbrewery. Lacking funds to put the plan into motion, the proposal collected dust for more than a decade. Cutter revisited the plan in 2007, but it wasn't until the following year, when he met a brewer named Dany Pages, that the brewery concept gained real momentum. Pages was visiting Colorado from Ushuaia, Argentina, where he had started Beagle Brewery, the world's southernmost brewery. Cutter and Pages shared a common vision, and a partnership was formed.
  Cutter took out a second mortgage on his home to help finance the venture. A third partner, Henry Wood, came aboard to spearhead sales. Upslope brewed its first batch in the fall of 2008. From the start, the Upslope brand has been synonymous with the Colorado outdoor lifefstyle. Henry and David are avid rock climbers. Matt is a cyclist, backpacker, and skier. To be compatible with that type of active lifestyle, and to reduce environmental impacts, all Upslope beers are packaged in cans.
  The partners had anticipated producing 400 barrels in their first year. The actual tally was 1,100. The next year they produced 2,400 barrels. The following year, it increased to 3,800. With the brewery unable to keep up with demand, Upslope opened a second, much larger production brewery and taproom in East Boulder in 2013. The original brewery is now used to produce experimental beers.
  This is extensive coverage about the brewery's origins and founding.
Cunard (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global Reach Partners[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

lack of encyclopaedic notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harveyjakes (talk • contribs)

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 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches find passing quotations from people associated with the company and mention relating to sponsorships, but I am seeing nothing to contradict the 2011 AfD consensus and demonstrate notability, whether by WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, references still fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:19, 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 delete. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NoTime[edit]

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

I have been unable to find anything at all written about this band in independent published sources. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article slipped through he cracks 10 years ago when AfD editors were perhaps not as diligent as they could have been. It happens. Nothing turns up in a search, plus even this article’s text suggest the subject was nothing more than an Ottawa, Canada area gigging band with no significant achievement. Created by a SPA editor who cites only three sources that lists the bands name as participants in various shows. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ShelbyMarion. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 20:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here passes WP:NMUSIC, and no reliable sourcing suggests that there are any stronger notability claims missing. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) f e minist 15:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steampunk Magazine[edit]

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

Reverted recent undiscussed blanking, but I suppose it ought to go through AfD if someone feels that strongly about it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2007 is very early for steampunk, which became rather more visible around 2009 and has continued since. As such an early publication, I think it has some significance. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Speedy keep#1: Author isn't requesting deletion, nor is anyone else... Merits of the existing redirect already discussed in edit history and talk page. Insufficient secondary sourcing to address the actual contents of the topic, and nom isn't offering new refs. Struck nominator's separate !vote. Come on. czar 18:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT EDIT MY POSTS. This is your only warning. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already linked it, but if you need the quote: "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." czar 22:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Apart from the procedural matter, a Google Scholar search turns up several examples of the magazine being studied as an example of the subculture. XOR'easter (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That search shows GS listings of the magazine itself, and a handful of citations... No depth to write an article about the magazine itself. The one sentence in that entire search about the magazine lists it among other expressions of steampunk fan culture, which is exactly as the magazine is covered in the main steampunk article (among other expressions of fan culture). czar 21:25, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asteras Glyka Nera F.C.[edit]

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

De-PRODed by article creator without an explanation. Was PRODed by Kudpung with the following rationale: "Not a professional major league club". —MRD 20 14 01:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —MRD 20 14 01:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —MRD 20 14 01:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —MRD 20 14 01:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:31, 25 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) 14:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zaidan S.A.L.[edit]

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

I am unable to find any independent reliable sources about this company. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 01:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Please be advised that I have blocked the article's creator, Marktabet123 (talk · contribs · count), as a sockpuppet of Joezaidan1998 (talk · contribs · count). The master was indeffed a month ago for "obvious editing on behalf of the company". GAB^gab 01:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass our general notability guidelines. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 01:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A previous instance was speedy-deleted. The unreferenced article merely describes a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL company and my searches are finding nothing beyond routine listings. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:20, 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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 14:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didi Senft[edit]

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

Fails to show notability of subject Moist towelett (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - There is a bit of coverage in reliable sources on the subject although most is just mentioning the subject in passing. This article does detail him enough to establish notability. Meatsgains (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable individual with articles in more than ten languages.--Racklever (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Webster (actor)[edit]

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

Delete: thoroughly non-notable actor. This is not a fansite. Quis separabit? 00:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence from news sources of notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem to have significant coverage or pass our standards for notability of actors. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 01:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) f e minist 15:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hrannar Hólm[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:RS Zazzysa (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources except one are from independent third-party newspapers or newssites so I'm not sure how they don't meet WP:RS. I'm more than happy to try to improve them if someone can point me in the right direction. Dammit steve (talk) 08:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the sources a bit (added dates, author, puplication etch.). The sources are, except one from Icelandic Basketball Federation regarding coaching record, from nationally distributed newspapers and a major Icelandic newssite that have been considered reliable sources in the past. Not sure what has changed to make them unreliable. Dammit steve (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definatly reliable sources. If you disagree, please read Wikipedia:NONENG.--Snaevar (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SOURCES. Stvbastian (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV8aPFPrVec%7Ctitle = Mujahida Hussain Bibi First Female Sitara-e-Jurat of Pakistan

[2] ttps://www.facebook.com/pg/muj.hussainbibi/about/

[3] ttp://hilal.gov.pk/index.php/layouts/item/1997-mujahida-hussain-bibi-the-first-female-sitara-e-jurat-of-pakistan

[4] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitara-e-Jurat

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]