Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 July	27 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 speedy delete. massive G12, G11, no clean versions to restore, previous AFD looked at A&, missed spamming Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gyrotonic[edit]

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

Copyvio came in at a staggering 87% and is clearly, without question a promotional page for the company Gyrotonic. How this ever has managed to remain even through 1 AfD is beyond rational reasoning given WP policy regulations and standards. It is mind-boggling to say the least that this article was ever allowed to be created. WP is not a place for advertising. Lastly, it just isn't notable: plain and simple.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Orta[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played nor managed in a WP:FPL. MYS 77 ^✉ 00:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 27 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. The non-routine coverage of him seems to be localized to the Middlesborough area. Fenix down (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably more noteable than half the footballers that end up at AfD, and at least has some coverage, but is he actually notable? really just a guy working a job like many other people at football clubs. ClubOranje^T 12:15, 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) 19:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moulay Anwar Sounny-Slitine[edit]

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

Appears to be a possible autobiography of a non-notable PhD student. I found a few mentions of this person as co-author of a few research papers, but nothing significant. I don't think it meets the WP:ACADEMIC notability guidelines, but I'm no expert, so would welcome other views. Marianna251TALK 23:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A number of changes have been made to the article since I listed it for AfD discussion, but I still have concerns. Actually, if anything, my concerns have got worse. The sources provided appear to be RS at first glance, but on examination they're either primary sources written/self-published by Sounny-Slitine, or are about the topics mentioned in the article but have no mention of Sounny-Slitine, or don't actually support the statements being made in the article. For example, this sentence: "In 2009, Sounny-Slitine joined the University of Texas as the Associate Director of the GIScience Center where he maintained the GIS laboratories, taught workshops, and worked on GIS research" has this news article as a source, but what it actually says about him is: "Anwar Sounny-Slitine, a geography graduate student and a senior desktop support specialist".

That's a pretty blatant misrepresentation. Another example is this statement "Sounny-Slitine attended the 2009 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference in Copenhagen where he represented the American Association of Geographers (AAG)" but the source actually says: "Geography graduate student M. Anwar Sounny-Slitine, government junior Rachel Aitkens and Emily Grubert, an energy and earth resources graduate student, attended the conference that lasted from Dec. 7 to Dec. 18. The students were able to participate in lectures as well as some meetings open to nongovernmental organizations." The other source given for that statement doesn't mention him at all.

Overall, the "sources" are hugely deceitful and the article is so far removed from them that it might as well be a work of fiction. Marianna251TALK 12:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be NN PhD student with a exaggerated resume. reddogsix (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Promotional misrepresentation of a non-notable subject. GScholar h-index of only 3 [1], for too early for WP:ACADEMIC. Nsk92 (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Why on earth was this BLP allowed to be created? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sounny (talk • contribs) 20:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even stubbed down to remove the puffery, no notability is evident. In particular he does not appear to have the citations to pass WP:PROF#C1 and there is no hint of any other WP:PROF criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 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 redirect to List of political parties in South Korea. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Patriots Party[edit]

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

Article about a not formerly (formally?) established political party. Declined for A7 CSD for reasons beyond my ken. I am unable to find any sources about the party. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. - Mr X 22:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here is one source that mentions that the sixth runner up in the presidential election plans to create this party on August 8. [2]- Mr X 22:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of political parties in South Korea. According to that article they have a seat in the National Assembly. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"According to that article they have a seat in the National Assembly" That's dubious, since the party will not exist (if at all) until August 8.- Mr X 12:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Procedural !vote, since User:Sj0514 (an account of 25 edits in 24 hours tenure has redirected it to the taget page already! -tbf it's a sensible redirection, just a little too urgent, perhaps. — fortunavelut luna 03:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Before anyone makes a decision you might want to take a look at Korean Wikipedia's article. Charles Essie (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a very notable party in Korea. --Donghaebadaro (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)— Donghaebadaro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect to List of political parties in South Korea, like the New People Party. --Garam (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per G5 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Manveermalhi SmartSE (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Innovative Financial Advisors[edit]

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

Cannot find any significant coverage of this organisation. Probably fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly not a notable organisation. Ajf773 (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yamani Institute of Technology[edit]

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

Can't find anything to suggest that this is a notable organisation. Created by an SPA in 2013, who has not edited since. Edwardx (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 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) 19:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Egbezi[edit]

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

A non notable singer, fails WP:MUSICBIO. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note An article by the same name, and same creator was ProD'ed, and deleted before. Apparently a single purpose account. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete footnotes are nothing but promotional non-reliable blog posts. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator. Subject lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. Even the blogposts which make up the majority of the "sourcing" (which would not be RS in any event) seem to be promotional and non-independent. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:32, 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 keep. A rationale for deletion has not been presented. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Landin[edit]

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

VietPride10 (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - isn't it correct process for there to be a justification for nominating an article for deletion? Or am I mistaken about this? Netherzone (talk) 23:27, 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) 19:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbiotism[edit]

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

This appears to be a neologism, probably of the author's own definition. No references and so no indication that the ideology is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utterly fails WP:NEO, as in, my searches turn up nothing beyond a use of this word by a movie blogger describing a quite different phenomenon "the symbiotism between both characters" and a lone news outlet discussing "the insidious symbiotism between politics and corruption ..." But that's all. Nothing close to meeting WP:NEO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it seems so blatant I think WP:A11 might apply. I'll tag it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, wait, it could be related to this?. Anyway, the topic as is seems made up, even if he's borrowed elements from elsewhere.
Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing new to add, really. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NEO. Did my own google search and came up empty. If supporting references do exist, someone should present them, or let this one go. nerdgoonrant (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A completely unsourced WP:NEOLOGISM with a smattering of half-decipherable content. Perhaps at some point there will be supporting and a coherent description of this topic, but not at present. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:36, 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shaharir Mohamad Zain[edit]

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

BLPPROD declined on the basis of a wordpress article and of a list of journal articles by the subject, not about the subject. Cabayi (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. In weighing the arguments, the WP:NBASE #2 argument is quite strong. I also note that Menaechmi's reading of that guideline is a clear misreading; the bit about whether statistics sites support notability is only applied in that guideline if a subject does not meet one of the criteria for NBASE. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryosuke Fukamachi[edit]

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

Meets athlete notability by appearing in a single game, but otherwise appears to not meet GNG. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NBASEBALL criterion #2. Rlendog (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of WP:BIAS. If this were a Major League Baseball player, I could see a show cause (and am confident such a player would pass). But since he is from Japan, sources would likely be in Japanese. Not many English-speaking volunteer editors have the time and skill to find and properly evaluate sources. Therefore, WP:NBASEBALL carries more weight. From my personal experience, I have created articles for Japanese athletes before (mostly boxers and marathon runners) and finding sources can be quite challenging. Adding to this, this player played a decade ago. Most sources would be a decade or more old. As much as we may want to believe the Internet gives access to anything, finding decade old non-English sources is really hard to do. This guy played in the second highest league in the world and in a large, first world nation's most popular sport. Its one game, but U.S. athletes have been shown to meet it, no reason to not stick with the presumption that a player from Japan would as well. RonSigPi (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of bias without evidence is a bit troubling - I think playing in one game no matter what sport is no fair grounds for notability. I know it passes the Baseball notability, but that doesn't mean it passes GNG. It was a recently created article I found, for a player who pitched in 1/3rd of an inning all time, so I XfDed it. You gave your opinion but there is no reason to not AGF. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. Meets WP:NBASE #2. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By appearing in an NPB game, we presume him to be notable. We presume there is Japanese-language coverage of him. Even though TridentMan123 (or is it Alexsautographs?) did a terrible job of creating this page, NBASEBALL exists for good reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NBASE, which explicitly states "Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability". The JP wiki, only has one reference for him a Japanese statistics site. Outside of these, there is a blog post, and a one-line mention. menaechmi (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a difference between establishing notability and presuming notability. WP:NSPORT is just a guideline. Meeting any one of them does not establish notability. But meeting one allows us to presume that the subject is notable and the notability is reasonably likely to be able to be established if editors look hard enough. In view of my comments above, in this case I think we give the presumption its due and keep. We have to make a tough call - no matter what it's going to be really hard to find sources. So we have to make a judgement call. Considering the factors, keep. RonSigPi (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's totally fair - and frankly I have concede the article remaining. I still stand with my original arguments, but it is general WP policy for an appearance in a single game to be considered sufficient. Since consensus is against making an exception, I accept defeat. The only issue I took was regarding NPOV - I just want you to know I am not biased against Japan! Cheers ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:00, 3 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. Based on the discussion it seems like the topic is not notable, and the points raised by the only keep !vote do not address this issue. That the company may become more notable in the future does not mean it will. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Powdair[edit]

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

Non-notable airline. Does not pass WP:NCOMP. One French source about them starting up. One German source about a new investment. Two passing mentions [3] and [4]. A bunch of press releases. Recommend delete without prejudice - they have the potential to become notable, as soon as they actually start flights (in December). menaechmi (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice Pardon me, but what is a virtual airline? A travel agent or tour packager I understand. The article says in one place they will fly Embraers and in another Canadair Challengers. Rhadow (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not exist yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They are taking money, however. Rhadow (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could be notable in the future but the company isn't even operational according to the references. There are quite a few references but mainly announcements of funding and nothing that I feel meets WP:CORPDEPTH --CNMall41 (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is badly written but the airline website is up and running, company is open, business is taking place. Pointless to delete an article then create a new one in a few months when it is a business running. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.244.27 (talk) 16:36, 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Palizgir[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Maybe WP:TOOSOON, but still. Kleuske (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:25, 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) 19:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kiran Kaverappa[edit]

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

The subject lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. A Google news search reveal only passing mentions except this recently published source which reads like an interview. The article was deleted twice after the expiration of PROD and I still believe its WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone article so bringing up here for a wider discussion. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to have only minor collaborative credits on songs and doesn't satisfy any of the criteria at WP:ARTIST. --regentspark (comment) 23:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of WP:SIGCOV, and fails WP:ARTIST. On a sidenote, I not this person. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:25, 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khagani Guluzade[edit]

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

Struggling to see how it can pass WP:GNG. Founded a non-notable sports club, and co-founded the Azerbaijan Kickboxing Federation - doubt that is enough to establish notability. Edwardx (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no claim to notability and no sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Likely to be a tribute page or an autobiography; BLPs deserve better than this. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Innovateurship[edit]

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

This is a neologism that is not in common use in English and has one source. (Whether it is more widely used in French is not important in the English Wikipedia.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself says "There is no education or established definition of innovateurship so far." This is not the place to establish such a definition. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Mduvekot (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete brand-spanking-new neologism which doesn't even have a significant history of use by its coiner, and none at all by anyone else. Mangoe (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the original article (as well as its translator), I have realised by now, that the publication of this article was indeed premature. Other scientists haven't had a chance to comment on/cite the presented theory, as it is still too new. Due to my PR background, I made the mistake of wanting to publish about this new scientific development as soon as possible. Thus, I support a deletion of this article until it can be verified by secondary literature.-- HillJudith (talk) 11:21, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ali Raza Usama[edit]

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

Many things written about him in article fails WP:V. Making a search produces no notability (i.e. no notable source). Fails WP:GNG. Might also fails Subject specific guidlines too as he directed only one film for which he got only a nomination but never won. Greenbörg (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 08:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 08:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 08:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete self-promotion. fails to meet WP:GNG. cited sources are not RS. --Saqib (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - searches turned up nothing to show that they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources cited are a wiki page, a BBS, a blog, and two production pages that aren't actually about the article subject. No indication of independent, WP:RS coverage. Eggishorn (talk)(contrib) 23:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Keep Enough coverage has now been found to qualify under WP:GNG Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An editor requested I reopen and relist this discussion because they wanted to comment but couldn't because of an edit-conflict
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 19:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had originally drafted a comment as "weak keep" (see User_talk:SoWhy#Edit_Conflict_just_as_the_AfD_was_closed) but missed out when SoWhy closed as an edit conflict. In the subsequent search for sources, Mar4d managed to find quite a few that I had not (please see User_talk:Mar4d#Urdu_Sources_for_Syed_Ali_Raza_Usama). Dozens of mentions in notable sources, and although none of these sources by itself screams notability, his credit as a director of very notable films and TV, as well as his nomination for the 2014 Lux awards and other awards that he did win for Main Hoon Shahid Afridi (see the article) makes me think that he easily meets WP:CREATIVE (#3 and #4c). The article needs quite a bit of work, but should not be deleted. Pinging other contributors Eggishorn Greenbörg one15969 Saqib — Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. This can be kept now. I just don't believe I missed to find the press coverage the subject has received. Thank you @Insertcleverphrasehere and Mar4d: for your efforts to rescue this bio. --Saqib (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in concurrence with Insertcleverphrasehere's views, and the sources that were later explored on the subject. Mar4d (talk) 18:07, 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zhuoqun Song[edit]

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

Not enough information about this person to satisfy general notability or biographical notability.

There is no notability guideline specifically about the International Math Olympics, so only general notability applies (and it doesn't). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shailesh Pandey[edit]

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

Non-notable actor, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to support general notability guideline and no evidence of passing WP:NACTOR or WP:BIO. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not satisfying our basic notability standards for actors. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 18:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I don't care what happens to this article, but why delete articles because some people recognize them as "not notable enough"? Even if they aren't that notable, isn't the point of Wikipedia to have articles on (almost) everything? You know what I mean. Just my opinion. 74.108.224.146 (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not Wikipedia is for. You need to read WP:Notability and WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the lack of 'online' source doesn't prove that the person is not 'notable enough' . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:A022:7CBC:0:0:1236:E8A0 (talk)

@2405:205:A022 Exactly. Though like I said, I don't care what happens to this page. 74.108.224.146 (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@74.108.224 146 , @2405.205.A022 a link has been added to the acticle as a source.

Helpforwikipedia ^{(Wanna discuss?)} 12:39, 29 July 2017 (IST)

why not remove the tag then ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:C000:28BB:0:0:1CCB:10A4 (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete: Although i agree with Clarityfiend but i don't think this page should be deleted.This person has notable contribution in the development of Bhojpuri cinema.I don't care whether its deleted or not but it should exist on wikipedia.

Helpforwikipedia ^{(Wanna discuss?)} 09:13, 27 July 2017 (IST) — Helpforwikipedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~Keep~~:Is the discussion dead ?

If no one is in favour of the Nomination of deletion,why not keep it.I know the online sources in the favour of this article is less but this person exists indeed,and is has appeared in regional newspapers and tv interviews (I'm from the same state) . Helpforwikipedia ^{(Wanna discuss?)} 09:13, 27 July 2017 (IST) — Helpforwikipedia (talk • contribs)

I have struck your !vote since you can only !vote once in each AfD, and this was the second time for you. Your reasons for keeping an article above are not valid. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social networking site or a vehicle for advertising and promotion please see What Wikipedia is not. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article Shailesh Pandey was earlier created by Helpforwikipedia in November 2016 and he also created Shailesh pandey. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:PROMO. DrStrauss talk please use {{ping|DrStrauss}} when replying 09:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He exists, but my searches found no sources indicating that he is notable. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm in agreement - there are a few minor roles suggested on IMDB, but no coverage that suggests he passes WP:GNG notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:24, 3 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Towers[edit]

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

No assertion of notability and fails WP:Pornbio. AniMate 17:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources. No claim of notability per WP:PORNBIO. The cited book source is self-published by the subject (via Lulu). The AVN citation is passing mention in a film review. The Wayback Machine says the dead AVN ext. link is an interview/press release promoting the book. That leaves us with the Gay Porn Times article, which is another interview promoting the book. • Gene93k (talk) 11:24, 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Griffith[edit]

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

fails WP:NJOURNALIST and WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete as an article that would have been PROD'd with no controversy. (WP:DEL7 and WP:DEL8). menaechmi (talk) 15:32, 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Students' Union University of Greenwich[edit]

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

Non-notable student organization of the sort that every university has. I tried redirecting to the university's article but that was overridden. Largoplazo (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every other Students' Union has a page List of Students' Unions in the United Kingdom, precedence has been set, you also tried to redirect not even a few hours after the page was made and was being edited. There is still more information to put on this page. MaxGreyson (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: MaxGreyson (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — MaxGreyson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

A quick survey of that page show that many of those pages are actually redirects to the associated university, and several of the ones that aren't have tags questioning their notability. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the unlikelihood that a given student group within an institution of learning is of any note outside that institution (unless it's a group that competes or performs at large, like an athletic team or high-profile a cappella group), I checked very quickly and satisfied my expectation that the organization wouldn't meet the notability guidelines. Though an article's contents can lead an editor to evidence of notability that might otherwise have been missed, even the current, fuller version of this article doesn't do that; and notability is independent of the contents of the article. Largoplazo (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case then almost every other student union page will need to be deleted, I just picked one at random King's College London Students' Union 14 of their 19 references are to their own website or the universitie and the other 5 are to not very noteworth news articles from very minor sources. Another random one Staffordshire University Students' Union, 6 references 5 to themselves, 1 to 'One Media Group'. Precedence has been set by allowing other students' unions with even less notability to have pages. MaxGreyson (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right that those other pages are subject to deletion. I've submitted articles for deletion before when they've been presented for comparison with a new article being considered for deletion. It generally isn't a matter of "allowing" those articles to exist but of no one having evaluated them before. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Largoplazo (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just redirected Staffordshire University Students' Union to Staffordshire University. Largoplazo (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going through List of Students' Unions in the United Kingdom and de-linking redirects (and also creating redirects to the Uni for the redlinks before I remove them). That'll hopefully discourage the creation of non-notable articles in the future. I've finished the A's and B's. GretLomborg (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aston Students' Guild, I've noticed a few that were speedy deleted without discussion for non-notability as well. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG. All the coverage I can find is very shallow of the passing mention variety. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched for third-party coverage and could not find much. The Huffington Post article is about a different subject, which has its own article. There is not enough third-party coverage to meet the general notability guidelines. Malinaccier (talk) 02:52, 3 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) 19:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seek ye first[edit]

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

Only seems to be found on lyric sites; nothing of a critical nature that I can find; this would seem to fail WP:NSONG. Derek Andrews (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Derek Andrews (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, not notable, fails NSONG. --George AKA Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 17:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect to Pachelbel's Canon as it's based on that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the expert sleuthing from StAslem Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect per User:Ritchie333, except that possibly Gospel of Matthew would be a better target. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To clarify where to merge/redirect to
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 14:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Karen Lafferty, who wrote it. (Well, at least she wrote the first verse. I don't know if anyone knows where the second verse came from.) It is an incredibly well-known hymn, probably the most widely reproduced hymn of the 1970s, and I was able to find this account of how she came to write it, but I don't think there's enough for a stand-alone article. Mangoe (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep based upon the sources mentioned below. I have rewritten the article accordingly. Mangoe (talk) 02:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the cited sources, Hymnary, has several paragraphs on the background to the song's composition and a basic musicological analysis, originally in McKim. There are also several discussions of the song in Google Books, such as an academic text that discusses the song's financial success, citing another source not on the Web. There's also a source with more details of the song's composition, though I suspect it's self-published (& therefore not an RS). Also, I would question the applicability of WP:NSONG, which tends to assume the candidate song exists to make money in the commercial record industry. I would expect this song would be notable as a liturgical item just as much as a record release, but it's difficult to search through the vast number of quotations to the Biblical text that provides its title. If it gets merged, then Matthew 6 would be far better than Gospel of Matthew, but I agree with Mangoe that Karen Lafferty would be the best option. Matt's talk 17:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per M.R.Forrester, or Merge to Karen Lafferty per Mangoe if no consensus exists to keep as a standalone article, per WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I know the song well, and this is the first time I've heard it said that it's based on Pachelbel's Canon. We would want a very good source affirming that before we merge it to that article. St Anselm (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't have the right bass line to fit the Pachelbel rant. Mangoe (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't help thinking of that when I saw this discussion: "Of course it's based on Pachelbel's Canon. Every song is based on Pachelbel's Canon..." St Anselm (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In fact, it easily passes WP:GNG. Both Albuquerque Journal ([5]) and First Things ([6]) have published articles specifically on the song. It has also received significant coverage in other articles: [7][8][9] St Anselm (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a terrible song IMO, but yes, it is certainly notable as demonstrated by the sourcing provided by StAnselm and others. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment Given that the outcome looks to be keep, I've moved it to the correct capitalization. Mangoe (talk) 18:28, 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) 19:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Smutný[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability (people), poorly sourced, promotional ^{Atsme📞📧} 08:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources that are significant aren't independent and the sources that are independent aren't significant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 14:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an advertorial BLP, sourced to primary and / or WP:SPIP sources. Notability not established by the existing sources and there's nothing better out there. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Heights (wholesaler)[edit]

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

Current sourcing consists of press releases, primary sources, listings, and non-rs like LinkedIn and FB. Unfortunately, because of the commonality of the name, I couldn't find anything in searches about a wholesaler of this name. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability is not inherited from prior activities of the company founder or from a brand ambassador. The text and references about the company itself indicate just a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL enterprise. My searches are finding nothing better: fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 14:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Alex Shih ^Talk 09:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tran Siu[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Does not assert the importance or significance of the topic, other than an appearance in an Australian TV show which doesn't have its own Wiki. - TheMagnificentist 08:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing seems to have changed since the last nomination. Mattlore (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, he has some significant degree notability. Brimbank’s first Chinese-Vietnamese councilor. Also deputy mayor of Brimbank. He also made the news some time back, getting into trouble with the how to vote cards. Karl Twist (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 14:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The last AfD was only 3 months ago, the article was deleted as a result and I can't see that anything has changed in that time. He wasn't notable then and doesn't appear notable now. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being the first person of a particular ethnic background to hold an otherwise non-notable political office is not a Wikipedia inclusion criterion in and of itself, and neither is being deputy mayor of anywhere. To get a Wikipedia article, a person at this level of significance has to clear WP:GNG on the back of enough reliable source coverage to demonstrate them as significantly more notable than the norm — but the referencing here is not doing that, as it consists of two self-published pieces he wrote about himself on user-generated content sites, two primary sources that cannot assist in building notability at all, one glancing namecheck of his existence in a source that isn't about him, and one blurb of reliable source coverage. That is not enough to make a person notable just for serving on a municipal council. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 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) 19:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeskTime[edit]

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

non-notable. It is made collectively to promote it. Nothing significant is found to establishes Notability. other are : Draugiem.lv & The Draugiem Group Light2021 (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable app; these are a dime a dozen and nothing stands out about this one. Insufficient sourcing. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 14:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 1 ref, unremarkable product, at best a routine directory entry. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:37, 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 redirect to Kmart#Australia and New Zealand. Not the majority opinion, but WP:ATD argues for it, and unanimous agreement from everybody who commented after the suggestion. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Burwood One[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. gnews gives very limited and routine coverage like a bomb scare. same with its old name "Kmart burwood". LibStar (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, small and insignificant shopping mall. Fails WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, there is some coverage on the mall apart from the bomb scare. The article is good but needs some improvement but most importantly references. Karl Twist (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES. please provide actual evidence. LibStar (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 14:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notable only for a small locale event not covered under WP:GEOSCOPE.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to meet GNG. I looked long and hard for references because if the claims in the "Beginnings" section are true, I would expect national or at least regional coverage. No luck, though, so I also question whether the unreferenced claims in the article are factual. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the content is very difficult to verify and the claim to general notability is flimsy. DrStrauss talk please use {{ping|DrStrauss}} when replying 09:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kmart#Australia and New Zealand where I have added a single sentence edit sourced to a leading Australian daily. Reason is, that although my searches turn up only ROUTINE coverage of Burwood One, a newish shopping mall ("Santa will arrive at Burwood One on...",) the Burwood One site and building that was Australia's first Kmart. In Australia in 1969, the advent of Kmart was a big deal. And the fact that it was a big deal in 1969 was revisited in the press when this mall replace Kmart in 2010.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That redirect seems like it may be a surprise; does a general reader who searches "Burwood One" expect to end up on "Kmart"? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The claim to fame seems to be that it was the first Kmart in Australia, and there was a minor bomb scare that turned out to be a broken toy. The only item worthy here is the Kmart history, and turns out there's a Kmart Australia article. I added Burwood One info there as well, and placed the main template in the Kmart#Australia and New Zealand section [[10]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtempleton (talk • contribs)
Redirect to Kmart Australia per Timtempleton. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:05, 3 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The T with Emoji & Nikki[edit]

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

Subject lack significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly WP:TOOSOON, as there is one independent, WP:RS (the Seven Days article) and that is very short. No other indication of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 14:49, 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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raayo S Bakhirta[edit]

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

Page has been deleted before-anyway actor of questionable notability. Only 2 roles so far. Wgolf (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:53, 10 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) 01:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced sub-stub for actor with no indications on notability in article on in search results. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 14:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP. No sources means it can't be verified, if BLPs can't be verified they must be deleted. As Eggishorn says, it could be WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:NACTOR. DrStrauss talk please use {{ping|DrStrauss}} when replying 09:08, 3 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 redirect to Gran Tierra Energy. There is no significant, third-party coverage of Petrolifa Petroleum to satisfy the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Consensus is to delete the article. TimTempleton's suggestion to redirect is sensible. Malinaccier (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Petrolifera Petroleum[edit]

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

Deprodded with "this former public company does have some rs". I don't find this company meets WP:NCORP. The six references include two routine entries in business directories (one a deadlink). The third one is a press release, so not independent. The forth has a couple of paragraphs on the companies finances. The last two just confirm the company was bought-out (and one of those is not independent). This does not add up to significant independent coverage. MB 02:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is written in a promotional tone, and there's no sign of independent coverage (as per nom). Power~enwiki (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 14:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP. DrStrauss talk please use {{ping|DrStrauss}} when replying 09:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gran Tierra Energy. I just added some info to a new history section, but there's not enough notability to suggest a standalone article is warranted. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:49, 3 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Gathering (Glengarry Bhoys album)[edit]

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

No evidence that the subject meets WP:NALBUM notability (or WP:GNG). - Mr X 14:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would contest that the subject meets WP:NALBUM notability (or WP:GNG). Just because one person's treasure is another person's trash doesn't mean everything on the internet should be deleted. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is bad logic. And coming from a musician, I at least have some claim of knowledge on the subject (even though, yes, that would be an appeal to expertism of a sort). I would discuss at that link there if it wasn't a red herring and a wild goose chase. I do wonder why this subject can't be dropped and better things moved onto, or does somebody here just loathe and abhor bagpipes or something? Oh, and FTR, I have been in touch with a member of OTRS whom is very willing to help me out with what almost appears to be some senseless vendetta, but I know better. The records clearly show that User:Jennica used my contribution of the article as a stepping stone to fuel and boost her own record, of which I have already notified OTRS multiple times. It's only a matter of time, now. I do not appreciate being used and abused. - Blast Vortex (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Blast Vortex: "Boost what record"? I am not abusing anybody. I am following the guidelines. I know that this album is not notable in any way. Maybe you need to brush up on some guidelines and try talking to me [or whoever else you accuse] before running to other editors about this "issue" you have. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 17:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A web search came up with two review for me but I don't think that is enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. @Blast Vortex: what the heck are you talking about? Can you provide diffs at my talk page or something for these broad allegations?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. I am also befuddled with Blast Vortex's comments... DrStrauss talk please use {{ping|DrStrauss}} when replying 09:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some searching for independent coverage of the album does not turn up anything significant. The album has not received any notice, so it does not satisfy the general notability guidelines for inclusion. In addition, the album does not appear to have received any awards or significant playing time that would cause it to satisfy the guideline for album notability. Malinaccier (talk) 16:52, 3 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 12:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Latha Krishna[edit]

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

Blatant advertising. Should have really been deleted per WP:CSD#A7 (or at the very least bounced to here) because the creator kept removing the CSD tag (against policy) so many times, everyone got fed up of it. A search for sources brings up a complete blank beyond self-published stuff. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. DrStrauss talk please use {{ping|DrStrauss}} when replying 09:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedilly if possible, and, @nominator, I think we're all wondering why the article creator wasn't blocked, or even warned for, 6RR...?! — fortunavelut luna 10:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea, must have just slipped through the net. No point blocking now, of course per the usual reasons. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:56, 3 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. Clearly a consensus to keep, the nominator's somewhat out-of-process second delete !vote irregardless. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 10:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gipmochi[edit]

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

This is a non-notable peak as far as I can tell from the sources. It figures prominently in the current events as the Chinese-claimed border of Doklam. But all these issues are amply covered in the Doklam page. There is little in this article about Gipmochi itself. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The deletion seems make a mistake. The Doklam area dispute between China and Bhutan has nothing to do with Gipmochi (as the tri-junction point) and the 1890 Anglo-Chinese convention (which only set the now boundary between China and India, but not the boundary between China and Bhutan). They are two things. And Gipmochi is not belong to the Doklam area. What the article Gipmochi need is adding more sources of geography and climatology. Please don't delete the article before you have checked all possible relevant books, articles and other sources in all languages, especially those published in India, China and Bhutan. Sgsg (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable natural feature per WP:NGEO and is featured in multiple reliable sources. The ongoing China/India border dispute will continue to add to these per WP:NOTFINISHED. Philg88 ^♦talk 15:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - a mountain located at a contested junction of three countries is without doubt notable for its geopolitical value alone. A Google books search for Gipmochi returns almost 1000 results, further attesting its significance. -Zanhe (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zanhe, How many of these sources discuss the mountain per se, other than mention the fact that it is referenced in the Anglo-Chinese Treaty of 1890? Note that the convention itself is covered in the Convention of Calcutta page, and the current India-China staff is covered in the Doklam page. What else can be said on this page, other than to duplicate the content from those pages? WP:GNG requires two reliable sources that discuss the topic, not merely mention it. I don't see them for Gipmochi. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a mountain at the center of current China/India standoff definitely has a value. Yes it needs more geo information but surely it is important. Zibeaster (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - a mountain located at a contested junction of three countries. DLinth (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep A mountain referenced in multiple reliable sources, not the least of which involve significant coverage of its role in a not-significant regional dispute. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

8km
5miles

Mount Gipmochi

Border of Bhutan at Chumbi Valley

Delete (I don't normally !vote on pages that I nominate, but here I suppose more elaboration is needed.) As per WP:GNG, we need reliable sources that give significant coverage to a topic, and we normally require at least two such. Gipmochi is mentioned in a lot of reliable sources because it is stated as the trijunction point in the Convention of Calcutta, and this fact has been reproduced over and again. But these sources mere mention to the topic; they do not constitute signifanct coverage that allow us to develop an article out of them.

The current standoff between India and China has been called "Doklam standoff" in sources (over a million of them), and so it is covered in our Doklam page. If the conflict develops into something bigger, I am sure we will spawn an independent page for it. So, once again, the current standoff does not warrant a page on Gipmochi. Moreover, Gipmochi represents the Chinese claim on the trijunction point, where the Bhutanese maintain that Batangla is the trijunction point. Almost all the internet mapping sources currently depict Batangla as the trijunction point. (See the map.) So, this article is in danger of becoming a WP:POV fork of Doklam, presenting a one-sided view.

So I believe that, as per policy, this page should be deleted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the current political situation, WP:NGEO applies and establishes notability. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if this is to stay as purely a geographical page, then perhaps you can support me in getting rid of all the political stuff from the article? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There might be an argument for scaling back the content a little, but I don't think we need to excise all reference. WP:GEO articles tend to contain a lot of historical/regional info, in addition to the natural history and there's no problem with that. We need only keep the article for becoming an excessive depository for alternative/reduplication acounts of the content in the Doklam article, per WP:POVFORK. But some mention of these events will surely remain. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain per which policy should this mountain be deleted? Both nDroklam and Gipmochi are geographical features. Some people have already made Doklam as a one-sided POV fork of 2017 Sino-Indian stand-off, and one should definitely not do the same to Gipmochi. --146.96.252.3 (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:GEOLAND. DrStrauss talk please use {{ping|DrStrauss}} when replying 09:11, 3 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. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 10:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parisa Mehrkhodavandi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage in secondary RSs) and fails WP:PROF - no very highly cited first-author publications. Rentier (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. passes WP:Prof#C1 with a GS h-index of 23. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. On top of the pretty-good citations, the Humboldt Fellowship is a significant honor. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passes WP:Prof though, which is part of GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

That really depends on how one reads the guideline. She is the third author of the publications that are apparently her claim to notability (the first line of the article; with regards to the reference, the order of inventors on a patent carries no weight). The Humboldt Research Fellowship for Postdoctoral Researchers has an acceptance rate of 33% [11], and it doesn't qualify for WP:Prof#C2 in my view. Rentier (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 12:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Humboldt fellowship is a postdoctoral fellowship for which the recipient must apply and which has a relatively high, 33% acceptance rate. Postdoctoral fellowships are explicitly excluded by WP:PROF#C1 (see Specific criteria notes) and hardly fit in with the major awards listed as examples of awards satisfying WP:Prof#C2. The subject isn't a full professor yet. Given the high amount of unsourced information, I don't see how the article wasn't written by someone with a close connection to the subject. Rentier (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Xxanthippe and David Eppstein both make a good case. Keep per NACADEMIC #1 and 2. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:45, 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. So Why 12:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Borde[edit]

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

PROD'd by me earlier tonight and de-PROD'd within nine minutes by InternationalWriter, a user with six edits who I believe is the subject or an associate, based on the fact that three of those edits concern Mr. Borde or his projects. And whose last edit was June 20th, prior to swooping in to remove the PROD. I have left a note on his talk page asking him to identify if he has a COI.

For the record although I know a COI isn't grounds for deletion in and of itself: it is obvious that the subject is the creator (User:Web2008editor, formerly known as Bordeglobal until a rename in 2016). As if the name weren't a dead giveaway, the creating account has very few other edits but until 2012 periodically returned to update the article with Borde's latest pet projects. That account's only other edits (including deleted edits) were to projects Borde is involved in.

All that aside: despite extensive searching I can't find any independent sources that verify the subject's notability under any guideline - WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:ARTIST, etc. All the sources linked in the article are self-published by the subject or are otherwise not reliable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

InternationalWriter has admitted to being the subject here and subsequently attempted to replace the article's content with the word "delete" here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom especially with the blatant COI. DrStrauss talk please use {{ping|DrStrauss}} when replying 09:12, 3 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. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 10:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese Marine and Wildlife Museum[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a private museum. Impossible to verify any of the information, so fails WP:V, one of our core tenets. The source appears to be the director and curator of the museum. Mduvekot (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as one of the largest of its kind in the Middle East, I'd imagine there are non English sources. I can neither speak nor read Arabic though StarM 02:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of arabic-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is notable as one of few marine museums in Lebanon, if it is not in fact the only one. Museums are generally notable as public attractions, and will be covered in travel guides, etc. I also cannot read Arabic. I prefer to Keep outright, but a lesser alternative to deletion would be to add an entry for it into an existing or new list of museums in Lebanon or the Middle East, and then to redirect to that entry. It is simpler to Keep, though, if there is no obvious merger target existing already. --do ncr am 20:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears notable. The contention that it is impossible to verify any of the information in the article is simply not true.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:17, 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 no consensus. There does not seem to be broad policy-based agreement on whether or not this is simply a dictionary definition or the start of a solid article. Consensus in either direction has not been reached, but concerned editors should be able to make improvements here without resorting to outright deletion (see SoWhy's comment). Malinaccier (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Line (comics)[edit]

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

Another dictionary definition, similar to Run (comics), just deleted. This usage of the regular English word "line" is not even specific to comics, but is used widely to mean a range of related products on sale. Nicknack009 (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment I swar to god this is the last time I'll ever try to do anything actually informative or helpful on this site. Is it not obvious that this is a concept that exists and is used regularly and would be good to have information about somewhere on this site? How about proposing a merge or turing it into a main product line article instead if you think the comic usage is not unique anough to support its own article instead of just trashing it all?★Trekker (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing lines are about as relevant as imprints are, being used as a tool for marketing and dividing up certain sections of a publishers works. But I guess the fact that "line" is a word used for other stuff negates that. Nice to know.★Trekker (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't very good right now, but I'm not entirely convinced it couldn't be something acceptable. Is this really just using the word 'line' as in a 'line of products' for comics, though? If it is, (which seems likely) it should probably be deleted. Weak Delete.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 16:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I considered a redirect to Product lining, but that target doesn't mention comics (or any specific products). There's no doubt the topic is real, but the sources are mostly for notable lines instead of showing comic lines are notable. When I searched for sources, the term "comic line" is rather generic - it is used to describe comics featuring one character (Superman), a group of characters (The Bat Family), particular versions of characters (Elseworlds), related comics (Marvel Universe), unrelated comics (Vertigo), or every comic from a publisher regardless of genre or character (The Dell line). I think it's a term that can be understood properly in context without the need for a link. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This seems like a good start for an article on an encyclopedic topic. Comic lines like Ultimate Marvel have had a noted impact on comics and wider pop culture -- see evidence of notability here and here, as well as the other references that User:*Treker has included. Because comic lines are predominantly about branding and narrative, they are fundamentally distinct from product lining so that would not be a useful redirect. A Train^talk 07:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@A Train:, no one has said that individual comic lines aren't notable. Like the sources *Treker provided, yours show notability of a specific line, not the concept of a line generally. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if necessary and then delete - I'm with Argento Surfer here - this is a dictionary article masquerading as an encyclopedia article. And I'm a long time comic fan. I recommend taking the content here that mentions specific lines and putting it into those comics' articles, in a section such as "Notable line", if the info isn't there already. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) Keep, 2) restructure to List of comics lines, 3) merge to Glossary of comics terminology or Imprint (trade name), 4) move to line (marketing) or 5) transwiki to wikt:line (in order of preference). Like mentioned above, this is certainly a notable concept and thus something people can expect to find in an encyclopedia. The idea that many specific lines are notable but the concept itself is not seems absurd. Unfortunately, concepts using common words are oftentimes hard to source by searching alone. This is one of those times we have to remember that all guidelines (such as those on notability) are "best treated with common sense, and [that] occasional exceptions may apply". I think this is one of those times. At the very least, the information could either serve as the basis for a stand-alone list allowing readers to find articles about notable comic lines or merged/moved as mentioned above. Deletion is certainly not the right way to handle this subject. Regards So Why 09:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a list is feasible. As I mentioned above, the word is fairly generic and can be applied to a wide assortment of groups. There's not a clear inclusion standard. A Train mentioned Ultimate Marvel as a notable line, but that article describes it as an "imprint." (It does uses the word line as a synonym of imprint once.) Vertigo (DC Comics) also describes itself as an imprint, then uses line as a synonym.
I oppose a redirect or merge to Imprint (trade name) though, because the synonymous meaning isn't reflexive. An imprint can be called a line, but not all uses of the word line can be called imprints.
I oppose a redirect/merge to Glossary of comics terminology because that article is about elements of comic structure, creation, and formats. It doesn't include anything about publication or marketing.
I'm not sure how Line (marketing) would be different from Product lining, but I mentioned above why I don't think that's an appropriate target.
As for a concept not being notable when examples of it are, it's because this is a generic term being defined in isolation. Product lining is the notable concept here - not product lining in comics. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:49, 4 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daven Michaels[edit]

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

Puff promo piece, with sources that go nowhere near proving notability. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. The only editor to add to this article is a WP:SPA Domdeparis (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:31, 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. Closing as a "soft delete." This article can be recreated if the subject becomes more notable. Malinaccier (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Henry (ice hockey, born 1999)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NHOCKEY. Madg2011 (talk) 01:11, 20 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) 08:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Okoye[edit]

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

Article should be deleted, a case of WP:TOOSOON Zazzysa (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please review article again, Victor Okoye's had enough press coverage, will be redundant to add them all, it's not a case of WP:TOOSOON — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patovollc (talk • contribs) 19:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing substantial about the subject to meet WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 24 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) 08:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sources can be found: currently it's referenced to press releases and material from the film school he attended, an interview and a brief mention in bellanaija; I'm not sure if bellanaija is a WP:RS (I suspect not) and nothing else is. Google finds nothing else except a couple of brief mentions. This is not WP:GNG quality of sourcing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For record sake, Bellanaija is a RS, they have a verifiable editorial board. A notable name when it comes to Nigerian entertainment information. I wouldn't use it as my main source for politics-related or scholarly-inclined articles though. Darreg (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Croft[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NHOCKEY. Madg2011 (talk) 01:11, 20 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) 08:14, 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. So Why 12:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Bourke[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NHOCKEY. Madg2011 (talk) 01:12, 20 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) 08:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable hockey player. DrStrauss talk please use {{ping|DrStrauss}} when replying 09:13, 3 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 12:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Beaton[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NHOCKEY. Madg2011 (talk) 01:12, 20 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) 08:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable hockey player. DrStrauss talk please use {{ping|DrStrauss}} when replying 09:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural impact of Michael Jackson[edit]

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

WP:OR and WP:FANPAGE. Created on 11 July and it seems like its an answer to Cultural impact of Elvis Presley, but unlike Presley, there's not enough content to say about Michael Jackson since his influence can be only described as influence on individuals and there is List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson. As for this article, it was WP:FORKed from Michael Jackson [12] and the second and only section is violation of WP:QUOTEFARM with no original content. Thus delete. Excelse (talk) 05:37, 18 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jackson's cultural impact is enormous and is the subject of numerous books, journal papers, articles, etc (e.g. [13][14][15][16]). So clearly the topic is notable: contrary to the proposal, it's hard to think of a performer since Elvis who's had so great an impact (only Madonna might compare). It might be an idea to reorganise or reduce the number of WP articles on Jackson (List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson has less worth), but an AfD isn't the way to do that. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why you are citing 8 years old articles? None of them says anything more than citing a few individuals who have been influenced by Jackson and that's something we have already said on List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson. Everyone has impact whoever has sold a bunch of million albums, doesn't means that we need article about it. We have "Legacy" section on the articles of these individuals for a reason. Anyone can become "the subject" following their death for a few days, whoever has sold a few millions of albums or has been highly notable in the field. The article is violation of WP:FORK ultimately, because it was done without expanding the main articles, read the policy then talk. Excelse (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep agree with all the above arguements! List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson should be included on the Michael Jackson's page and redirect there, but that's a discussion for that article's talk page MusicPatrol (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether other article needs to be redirect or not, that's a peanut gallery. List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson is actually more appropriate to talk about any "impact". Excelse (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one disputes it's importance, but it should be probably contained in the parent article like with most artists. It's not that extensive after all MusicPatrol (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*keep Cultural impact of Michael Jackson is a page to depict the impact of michael jackson on different field of the society such as music, fashion, music videos.and celebrity.and the page List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson shows the influence of jackson on different individuals/artist.before creating this page i have discussed it with lots wiki administrators who has more than 10 years experience in wikipedia.and i got the consent from them.and even after the creation of the page lots admins and user rviewed it.but nobody nominated it for the deletion.the only reason i find behind the afd nomination from User:Excelse is because I've been reverting the pov by him on the article Artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100.Ever since i did this he behaves with me a sense of vengeance.he nominated two of articles that i bring in to wikipedia.Before taking a decision on this i'm kindly requesting to all the wiki users over here to take a look of the contribution [17] and talk page [18]of this user he got blocked by wiki admins for two weeks before and got warned by diffent users from adding fancruft .Thank you.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Blocked for sockpuppetry[reply]

WP:ILIKE is certainly going lead others think that article is not needed. I am amazed you are throwing the term "fancruft" like a garbage here or there[19] without even thanking me for teaching it to you.[20] And no I have been never warned for that, kindly think deeply about your WP:INCOMPETENCE before talking trash about others. Excelse (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Right now, this article is not needed since it is a fork (significant aspects of it anyway) of what is already covered in the Michael Jackson article; I don't see that we should delete a lot of the content there and add it to this article instead. Since that article is WP:FA, good care should be taken with it anyway, and that means discussing breaking out any of its content. Furthermore, the cultural impact of Michael Jackson (I mean the topic, not this article) covers the less savory aspects of his life as well, including his child sexual abuse cases and the death trial concerning him, and we already have articles for those. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 MusicPatrol Colapeninsula Since Akhiljaxxn is now blocked indefinitely for socking, there is really no chance anytime soon that this article is going to be expanded and it is already pointed out that Michael Jackson's main article has more better content. Can you modify your vote? Excelse (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete....noting here but fan cuff....4 time we had to delete this.--Moxy (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is my vote. Above was more so commentary since I was not sure if I wanted to vote "delete." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering there are essentially only two main examples of cultural impact fostered here (on African American society and on fashion) it seems somewhat slight as a stand alone topic and reads much stronger were it contained the the larger, main Michael Jackson article. Unless, of course, an editor can somehow add more themes and examples to this one. But even then, all that seems to be more appropriately placed in the main article. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Maybe this article can be expanded and coverage the extra from the main article about the impact of Jackson. But now, has an unfavorable context and looks like a fancruft content. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 04:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given the sources in the article I think it can be persuasively argued that this is an encyclopedic topic. Clearly there is a lot of writing in reliable sources about the exact subject of this article, some are in there already and finding more is a trivial exercise. I'm flummoxed by the rationales of many of the delete arguments here. Excelse in particular seems to be discounting sources because they're over 8 years old? Hope they don't visit the Alexander the Great article anytime soon. I agree that the article needs to be cleaned up for tone but the topic is certainly a notable one. A Train^talk 07:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Train Seems you will say the same for any forked article that has been copied from "Legacy" section of main article. Its not enough to justify the creation of fancruft after WP:FORK the main article. I think you didn't read my whole comment, I said that 8 years old source that describes nothing more than what has been already covered in List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson is not enough for establishing notability of this article, in fact it has no relevance when we are discussing about "cultural impact". Clean up is needed? No, deletion is required. We can probably make up a Cultural impact of James Brown and say that his music influenced creation of disco, soul, hip hop and hence entire culture. Now that would be truly more "cultural impact" than this article, but either way when the "impact" is limited no more than influence among individuals we don't need a WP:SYNTH. Excelse (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excelse, you're making quite a logical leap in saying that I would "say the same for any forked article (etc)" -- how exactly did you come to that conclusion? Below you say that those of us who are arguing to keep are deploying WP:ILIKEIT, which is a pretty fatuous argument if you'll forgive me saying so. I am saying that this is a prima facie encyclopedic topic with references from reliable sources. Beyond the encyclopedic merits, there are technical guideline reasons for encouraging this fork: the prose weight Michael Jackson article is approximately 52 KB which, as it happens, is 2 KB heavier than the size Wikipedia's guidelines suggest is WP:TOOBIG and should be forked. A Train^talk 20:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MJ is a bg subject, subarticles make sense. Artw (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for closing admin until now, none of the keep votes have provided any reason except WP:ILIKE. They haven't justified that how a creation of this WP:FORKed article is justified and if there is any chance of better content than just present fancruft. Excelse (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The argument at hand is not weather Michael Jackson had notable cultural impact, but weather it is of such a level that we need to split a discussion of it off from the main article on Mr. Jackson. There is no clear indication that this is a subject of such note it should be treated seperately from the article on Mr. Jackson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: the article successfully shows the extent of Jackson's cultural impact. Forking content is eminently sensible here. DrStrauss talk please use {{ping|DrStrauss}} when replying 09:15, 3 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 keep Nomination withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SMK Bukit Bandaraya[edit]

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

This should be notable as a secondary school (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). However, I couldn't find the sources to confirm it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG, which secondary schools still need. Its Malaysian WP article has no other sources, I added what I could. This really needs to be properly resolved - the article has been tagged for notability for 9 years, during which it has been prodded (which was removed with a suggestion AfD was more appropriate given this is a secondary school) and redirected to a list article. Hopefully we can establish whether this is notable or not. Boleyn (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as confirmed existence in this, this and this, I also found a few others but they were not easy to link; likely others if I dig deeper but these are enough. Boleyn Would you consider closing now that sources are given? SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination per SwisterTwister's excellent work, which I have incorporated into the article. Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undeveloped (domain marketplace)[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. no articles to link to this and created by a single purpose editor. I think this is an advert masquerading as an article. LibStar (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article which arrived in mainspace after a couple of moves from draft:[21],[22]. The references are typical start-up announcement coverage, the best of which (Intrnet World Business) is briefly considering this new entrant relative to the existing market. I am seeing nothing to demonstrate attained notability, whether by WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB, or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- SPA created (Special:Contributions/Felice_von_Wilhert) & WP:SPIP sourcing. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 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. No sources that can be found with searches to establish notability per the guidelines for inclusion. Technically closed under the soft deletion close policy given the lack of comments, but I doubt there will ever be substantial third-party coverage that would justify an article. Malinaccier (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davis wong[edit]

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

No reliable sources found fails WP:RS, Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Zazzysa (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient sources to establish notability or to verify claims made. Article strikes me as promotional. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 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 number of sources were suggested, but later discussants felt these were primary sources and/or trivial mentions. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DatingAdvice.com[edit]

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

Nominating article for deletion on WP:NOTE, WP:CORPDEPTH and lack of significance grounds. The first source [23] cites an article about an individual who starts niche websites, and describes DatingAdvice.com (a description of the site is given) as one of his accomplishments. The second source [24] cites and discusses a DatingAdvice.com article, and quotes the editor in chief of said site. The next three sources are cited directly to DatingAdvice.com, and a further one [25] is a biography of an expert working at DatingAdvice. The most verifiable of the sources [26] cites a DatingAdvice examination of other dating sites, but does not comment on the website itself. A citation of ASU [27] leads to an expired scholarship posted by the article subject and a further link to DatingAdvice's website. The Forbes article cited [28] is attributed to the a founder of DatingAdvice, and the article was produced by the Forbes Technology Council, a community of contributors which Forbes notes *Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. Two further sources cite DatingAdvice.com as being a finalist in a US Dating Awards completion (this link has bee updated) [29] and as a winner of a Digital Brands Award [30], but no comment is made about the website. Not likely to find many more sources on the website, so I recommend deletion. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC) SamHolt6 (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: One source, The Gainesville Sun, is a longstanding newspaper, and the article discusses the significance and achievement of DatingAdvice.com in some detail. The owner gained enough notariety for a newspaper article by creating this site. Another source, Exploring the Dimensions of Human Sexuality, is a published book which cites and discusses research done by this article's subject. These two sources in particular are completely independent and have no special interest in the article's subject. Three of the site's writers (listed in the article) are each notable enough to have their own entries on Wikipedia. A Google search reveals HORDES of other sites (including some high-profile ones) linking to this site. It has certainly gained some significant recognition. I am willing to edit this article as needed to assist in making it comply with Wikipedia's policies, but I actually believe it already does as it currently stands. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 00:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO: I just discovered that the article's subject has been covered in another news article as well as a lengthy blog post. Though these are not referenced in the Wikipedia article itself, they do confer notability and would qualify as independent sources for the subject. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 23:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I feel this is a digital magazine. None of the sources suggest that it is a notable digital magazine. Many are trivial in nature. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I do agree that some of the sources may be trivial, though at least three are definitely both reputable and non-trivial. If you believe that some are inappropriate, your (or anyone else's) cleanup efforts would be appreciated. In addition to the two new sources I mentioned above (news article discussing the subject directly and blog post discussing the subject directly) which have not yet been added to the article, here are a few others I have stumbled upon recently which have not been added to the article yet either: newspaper article (this one directly covers the subject and is non-trivial), book (though this one is just an acknowledgement), and news article (this one just has a quote from a writer for DatingAdvice.com, so maybe not usable). Please feel free to improve the article! Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 00:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In general, coverage that merely claims that the website is lying in an attempt to get press coverage is not sufficient for meeting notability guidelines. Both your "new links" are of that form. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of the sources are primary or trivial mentions. The Gainesville Sun coverage is good, but I'd have to see broader coverage like that to establish notability before changing my vote. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:03, 3 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 redirect to KDE. Sandstein 10:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kdemultimedia[edit]

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

This product lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:PRODUCT and GNG. There is coverage of the parent company,KDE, but not this product. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Recommend redirect to KDE or deletion of this page. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to KDE. Notability isn't inherited from a parent company. DrStrauss talk please use {{ping|DrStrauss}} when replying 09:16, 3 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 redirect to Fanling-Sheung Shui New Town. Consensus is to non-controversially redirect the article to Fanling-Sheung Shui New Town Malinaccier (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Sik Road[edit]

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

Insignificant landmark. Article creator already removed CSD and PROD. — IVORK _Discuss 07:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article was just created a few hours ago. Can you wait? STSC (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Sheung Shui in lieu of deletion. As noted at commons:Category:Ma Sik Road, Ma Sik Road (zh:馬適路) is a street in Sheung Shui (zh:上水). Cunard (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect??
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this is in immediate violations of WP:Not guide given we are not a travel listing and, since this article contains 1 sentence with this exactly in mind, there's nothing to salvage in a policy-backed setting. As with any article, it can therefore be added at another article, but to actually keep something when it's clear there's no serious significance or improvements is contrary to policy. Simply because the ChineseWiki has not deleted theirs is not a securable defense since we have the highest standards of encyclopedia process here, and that can supersede. To quote WP:Deletion policy, Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia which is exactly what this is and it also explicitly says this applies to all content. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sheung Shui as a valid search term, per WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Fanling-Sheung Shui New Town. STSC (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and merge what content? Or on what policy? WP:Not clearly says we are not a trivia or travel guide. SwisterTwister talk 16:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just merge the description of Ma Sik Road into 'Fanling-Sheung Shui new town' per WP:ATD-M, and it would not become a travel guide as defined in WP:NOTTRAVEL. STSC (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Malinaccier (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jafar Dehghan[edit]

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

All of the article's sources are IMDB. I can't find anything that does other than mention him as having been in a film. Nn evidence he passes WP:ENT, specifically "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films" - eg looking at the 5 links, he didn't play a significant role in those films where we have an article Doug Weller talk 10:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: First of all, he has had significant roles in multiple notable films like Saint Mary (film), Prophet Joseph (TV series), Mokhtarnameh and many more...But unfortunately, he haven't got covered by media. I have added some more reliable links in the article. Now, he passes WP:GNG. Alan Hardest (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

- Comment IMDB shows that he didn't get credited for Saint Mary. It does show him as a star in the Joseph tv series. But not in Mokhtarnameh. Most of the links added by Alan Hardest fail WP:RS for BLPs (eg IMDB which we only use for credits, maybe awards) as they are user sourced, one was a copyvio link, so I've removed all but one. Doug Weller talk 10:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:22, 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. Closing per the no quorum rule as a PROD. No independent coverage of the band, indicating that it does not meet the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Malinaccier (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Knockabouts[edit]

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

Judging by the editing history, the article's creator re-introduced the content after a CSD so another speedy may be in order. The band has no independent coverage, just blogs and their own personal webpages. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:19, 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 and redirect to Widespread Panic discography#Multi track recordings . Sandstein 13:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal 1997[edit]

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

A non-notable archival album. Sources are limited to the band's own website, hardly passing WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. DrStrauss talk please use {{ping|DrStrauss}} when replying 09:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Widespread_Panic_discography#Multi_track_recordings per WP:ATD-R and WP:NALBUM...which should have been done by the nominator per WP:BEFORE instead of bringing it here... Regards So Why 12:25, 3 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) 19:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debian Pure Blend[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCT and WP:NSOFT, no significant coverage in WP:RS, reads somewhat promotional, also contains a section akin to a WP:LINKFARM. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs improvement, not deletion. It has no references, but a quick search finds independent sources. The fact that a section may be a WP:LINKFARM is also not reason for deletion, but for improving that section. Greenman (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meh - weak keep, or merge to Debian. Has two RS, others exist [31] [32] . linkfarm fixed. AFDISNOTCLEAUP. meets spirit of WP:NSOFT "significant in its particular field" with the caveat that sources seem rare. Widefox; talk 16:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:19, 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. Sources were provided but found insufficient to establish consensus. A redirect to the producer or the production company might be considered but neither currently contains any info about the film. So Why 09:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Puberty (American Psychology film)[edit]

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

See film notability guidelines. Films that are not yet released are only notable if the production itself is notable. This article says nothing about the production itself, and appears to be promotional rather than about the production. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I fell for the variety of references offered and ended up overlooking WP:NFF. No evidence that principal photography has begun and therefore should be deleted. Jupitus Smart 04:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not sure about the reliability of the Movie Insider reference. But since an admin thinks its believable enough, then there is no further point in harping WP:NFF, as the movie is otherwise notable. Jupitus Smart 10:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF and WP:TOOSOON. MarnetteD|Talk 04:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTALBALL, Maybe later after the films theatrical release WP:TOOSOON. FITINDIA 10:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As apparently this project has completed filming, is currently in post production, and has received a great deal of coverage. Per Variety (1), Variety (2), Bloody Disgusting (1), BLoody Disgusting (2),Pan Armenian, Joblo, Ramascreen, Dread Central, ~~Salon~~, Movie Insider and others WP:NFF appears met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not accurate. The Salon article is from 2013 and doesn't mention the film at all. The Movie Insider link is just a placeholder doesn't have anything to say about the film. The Panarmenian article is just a copy of the Variety article and doesn't add anything. Bloody Disgusting has 2 very short articles, largely made up of quotes. Rama Screen isn't a reliable source. The remainder are mostly run-of-the-mill articles saying "X is attached to project Y". Not convinced this meets requirements for WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck it. Oops. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for analysis of supplied refs
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 10:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To analyse the refs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy/draftify or delete as too soon. The coverage is trivial and routine and mostly regurgitating other media reports or press releases (see my analysis above). It's possible for an in-production film to have notability if there is in-depth analysis of the production process, but it must be something beyond "X signed for film Y and previously did Z". --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON - its release may have been affected by A Cure for Wellness, which sounds like a very similar movie. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:14, 3 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, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard John Brandes[edit]

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

No sources located sufficient to pass WP:GNG. First AfD from 2014 closed as no consensus because no one participated after 2 relists. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the sea of redlinks wasn't enough, both references are 404 and the domain for the external link to the equestrian sports company is for sale. Searches don't disclose any WP:RS coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material; we expect editors to try a bit harder to come up with sources :-). Just a basic directory listing at this point; no value to the readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. So Why 12:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Manuel[edit]

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

Should be a Speedy. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help me out. Under which criterion? - Ne ll is 00:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's got some press coverage as a website and book editor so a speedy is inappropriate. A merge to B3ta would be better than deletion, as most of his activities have been spin-offs from there, although maybe he's notable. He was a big cheese in British internet circles in the early 2000s and I'm not sure if there are now-vanished sources from that era. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if... it can be established he was "a big cheese in British internet circles" as User:Colapeninsula suggests. I recall coming across his name a number of times in the past (10, 15, 20 years ago?) even though I didn't pay much attention to British internet circles then. (Disclosure: I'm an occasional contributor to this article, plus I've engaged with Manuel slightly in recent years.)--A bit iffy (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage seems sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Artw (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article just about establishes notability but for it to be encyclopedic a willing editor must improve it, otherwise it should be moved to the draftspace. DrStrauss talk please use {{ping|DrStrauss}} when replying 11:46, 3 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. The only "keep" comments are not based on Wikipedia's general guidelines for inclusion based on notability. Those arguing to delete the article have made convincing arguments that the software is not notable as established by the guidelines for determining whether software is notable. Searches reveal very little significant third party software. Consensus is to delete the article. Malinaccier (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merlin (software)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Mere promoting the product for the sake of features published in blog and creating an article on Wikipedia does not stands a chance for encyclopedia material . Light2021 (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The article isn't depending on any features published in blog. It simply informs about the positioning of the software variants, their initial releases and their main usage. It should be kept because it is a standard application like MS Project, but for the Mac. References to the blog are removed. Thanks. --EStam (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: This information is like any other software product related wikipedia article, don't understand, why Light2021 wants to delete this one? MS Project does have an article in Wikipedia, as Merlin is a Mac only product like MS Project for Apple users, this article should be kept. --Toni (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Umm, "Toni (talk · contribs)", would you mind explaining this edit? menaechmi (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck this comment as it was made by EStam in an attempt to sway the discussion. Malinaccier (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources mentioned in the previous AfD: [33] (MacWorld), [34] (MacUser), [35] (TechRadar). Statements like "it is a standard application like MS Project" or "Merlin is a Mac only product like MS Project for Apple users" aren´t reasons with great weight in AfD. Available sources show notability of this software, but the article has other problems, mainly promotional style (still apparent, but was much worse) and high number of SPA editors (eg. in the previous AfD). Pavlor (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pavlor that's a good tip. Would you please name the areas with promotional style so one could correct them? --EStam (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After first look I thought another sales brochure, but on second look it is not that bad. Pavlor (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it seems the 2 Keeps are from WP:COI connections or strongly resembling them; as for the article, there are clear WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Promotion concerns, policies of which cannot be exchanged for notability guidelines as the latter are not established as policy. The current information and sources are simply firsthand or rehashed announcements or notices and that's not independent reliable and significant for WP:Notability, this being enough to withstand support in the noted policies. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per SwisterTwister. Fails WP:NSOFT and the keep votes are clearly from connected accounts. An SPI may be in order. DrStrauss talk please use {{ping|DrStrauss}} when replying 11:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 17:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Murphy (Motor Cycler)[edit]

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

This nomination was opened by SamHolt6 with the rationale "Nominated for deletion, non-notable person", but using the CSD process by mistake. I am neutral Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication he is a notable motorcycle competitor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from the source provided he appears to be notable for winning the Dakar rally although I think navigators are generally less notable. There seems to be enough coverage of his navigator career but not much on his motor cycling career. Gbawden (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:23, 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 no consensus. No further discussion of sources provided despite two relists So Why 12:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saadia Sehar Haidari[edit]

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

Not many WP:RS to verify her biography per WP:V. No notable award, only a mention in journalism website which writes about local journalists. Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Greenbörg (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. she fails to meet WP:GNG because of no coverage in RS and fails WP:AUTHOR. --Saqib (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG met. 1 2 3. Article could use expansion and improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First source is self published. --Saqib (talk) 06:32, 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 13:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ismail Zabeeh[edit]

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

Not many WP:RS to verify his biography per WP:V. Many things written are per WP:OR. No notable award. Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Greenbörg (talk) 09:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep Pakistan Post issued commemorative postage stamp in honor of this subject so he seems notable. --Saqib (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, struggling to find much on him, but the Pakistan Post source is pretty reliable and strongly suggests that he is notable. Warofdreams talk 18:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion has been open for nearly a month and nobody has voted to delete besides the nom (non-admin closure) Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 17:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Mah[edit]

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

no real evidence of notability beyond a few interviews in San Francisco papers. Never in charge of a famous restaurant; never won any awards--except one as "rising star chef", which means "not yet notable." DGG ( talk ) 07:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has been featured (several times) in SFGate and also in Nation's Restaurant News, Restaurants & Institutions and her recipes were featured on the Today Show and ABC. Passes GNG, though her recipes are also reviewed in some of these sources, so she may also pass under CREATIVE. I added sources and cleaned up the references to the article. I also expanded it a little. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a marginal case, but from a news search, I think there's just enough coverage to write a full article about her. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Megalibrarygirl. News sources here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:51, 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) — fortunavelut luna 11:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Barnes (Irish doctor)[edit]

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

Absolutely no evidence of notability. Appears to be the typical "lived a long life" spam coming out of the WOP project. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Added few references including from The Irish Times and from Google books, hope it helps towards notabilityBetterSmile:D 07:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)

Keep If this person is notable, it's not because of elderliness. But in my view, the Irish Times Appreciation and the mentions of his work on leprosy in the two scholarly books and in The Rotarian are enough to establish general notability. The blurbs from the hospital website and the ICROSS website would not be enough to establish it, but they're useful back-up. I think Bettersmiley performed a WP:RESCUE. David in DC (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This person is notable because of Irish Times Appreciation. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @David in DC and Ret.Prof: I'm not sure I agree. Note that the piece in the Irish Times is an obituary, not an article. It is written by a family member; note the author's name is Mary, as is one of his listed surviving children. An obituary written by a family member does not establish notability. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno why we should assume Mary England is Dr. Barnes' daughter Mary. That's not indicated in the Appreciation. And a death notice is different from an obituary. A death notice is usually written by a relative and not subject to the editorial review that an obituary would be. An obituary is an article written by a journalist and subject to the editorial review that makes publication in a reliable source an indicator of notability. This looks like an obituary and therefore an indicator of notability. David in DC (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To address Rob's concerns
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David in DC: I've received permission to state the following: Per ticket:2017060210012566, the obituary is wholly written by a family member. I can make no further comments on the contents of the ticket. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can say no more, then this still appears to be an obituary, which is an article subject to the Irish Times' editorial review and not a death notice, which is not.David in DC (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David in DC: GNG requires independent sources. Whether there is editorial review or not (and I've written an obituary that underwent no review, so this distinction is not at all obvious) doesn't change the fact the source isn't independent of the subject when it is literally written by the subjects family. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He passes WP:GNG. 100.40.125.198 (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Additional sources noting Dr. Barnes' work on leprosy: Healing Bodies, Saving Souls: Medical Missions in Asia and Africa, The Spiritual in the Secular: Missionaries and Knowledge about Africa, Para-States and Medical Science: Making African Global Health. David in DC (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added them to the article. David in DC (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article was around for a year and a half before his date of birth or living status was even included, so as much as I am no fan of WOP longevity fancruft, this article isn't a product of it. There is evidence of notability, not strong admittedly, between the sources listed in the article and this discussion, which appear to allow it to meet the criteria at WP:N. Canadian Paul 12:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has clearly done a lot in his long career, his longevity is merely a testament to the full life he's lived. Longevitydude (talk) 22:32, 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. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 12:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JForce[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

promotional press release. Internal software, which the company then sold. Details of the developmental process, but no substantial outside coverage. DGG ( talk ) 14:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Booth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Emily Booth

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

Not notable for Wikipedia. Only really inappropriate self-promotion found on the internet as "Emily Bouffante" (the stage name under which she is supposedly known according to the article) Doxduck (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as an actor and TV presenter. Plenty of coverage around. --Michig (talk) 06:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: seems to have plentiful coverage and her presenting of Bits (TV series) is described as " initially crashing into many a young man’s life with the brilliant BITS back at the turn of the millennium" at http://www.starburstmagazine.com/features/interviews/11378-emily-booth-horror-channel-interview. PamD 13:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quick look sees significant roles in Inferno and Evil Aliens which are both notable productions. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 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. no prejudice against recreating as a redirect to a sensible target. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North/South Alliance[edit]

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

This is a Stub with no references and no proper content. Crazycoolguy11111 (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete an obscure Civil War re-enactment group, the article has no references and makes no claim of notability. 01:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:18, 30 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) 03:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't see sources for this.Icewhiz (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no substantive content and no link even to the group's website. The info-box appears to given it a wholly spurious significance. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:GARAGE. Reenactment group of no apparent notability. Montanabw^(talk) 20:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to some list of reenactment groups or to the article about U.S. Civil War reenactment, as an wp:ATD alternative to deletion, which is what we should be looking for. I thought i posted a comment earlier but it seems not have been saved properly by me. I had found and linked to an interesting news article titled "The Rise and Fall of Civil War Reenactments" approximately (oh here it is, in TheWeek.Com, which covers the phenomenon and covered the Blue/Gray Alliance or Blue-Gray Alliance, apparently another group. I'm not finding a separate list-article so expect it should merge to the main article. --do ncr am 04:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete, nac, SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solganick & Co.[edit]

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

Advertorial article for a subject that does not appear to meet the relevant notability guidelines. Salimfadhley (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. List renamed to remove "notable" per WP:LISTNAME; this has no impact on inclusion criteria. postdlf (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable eSports players[edit]

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

Just because the people in this list are notable does not mean that the list itself is notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. This list actually in fact fails WP:LISTN, in spite of the deprod reason 6 years ago. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 01:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this may be covered by WP:NOTCLEANUP but anyway, from the lead "This is not a complete list of all active, professional eSports players; but rather a consolidation of the most influential or significant." according to who/what? and there is no column in the table that tells the reader of this influence or significance, so how is this list useful?Coolabahapple (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine the inclusion criteria is Wikipedia's most common - each item having its own article - and it probably just needs more added. Sergecross73 msg me 02:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, my idea of the inclusion criteria is each player having their own article. However, considering the rapid turnover of professional esports players (with some only having careers that span a few months to year). I'm attempting to limit the list to those who not only have their own article, but whose article is also more than a single paragraph with one reference. I've run into several people who have simply added a half-baked player article because it's their favorite player, even though they only played professionally for 1 game as a sub or something like that. I only recently discovered this list and am looking to add much more to it.Vorbane 15:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and this is coming from someone who probably !votes delete about 75% or more to delete esports player articles historically - this nomination is entirely flawed. Esports are a notable subject. The esports players listed currently have they're own articles and are notable, and the prospect that esports players aren't discussed in the capacity that NLIST requires is ludicrous - they're listed all the time. As long as the list has a discriminate scope (it does, as it is, or should be, limited to players who have their own article) this is a viable list. Sergecross73 msg me 02:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the people in the list are notable, the list itself passes WP:LISTN, the people in it pass WP:LISTPEOPLE. There are sources from Business Insider, ESPN, and PC Gamer discussing solely eSports players. A list from Forbes, that include several eSports players while being a list about people in gaming overal. This isn't even considering the non-main stream sources out there that are eSports focused. WikiVirusC^(talk) 03:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and WP:CLEANUP. Removed notable from the article title and delete all list entries of BLP's without an article. Ajf773 (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They all have their own articles, just for some reason a few only have wikilinks on their Gamer ID, and not their real name, while the rest have on both. WikiVirusC^(talk) 03:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I recently discovered this list, and as a huge esports fan, found it useful in discovering some of the key players from the games I love. I'm hoping to clean it up and improve it in any way I can. Admittedly, I'm very new to editing on wikipedia, but I'd love to try and make this list something that can bring value to other esports fans as well. I'm currently updating the list with better links and more accurate information. Once that's done, I'll definitely be looking to add more players over time. P.S. Please keep in mind that the 2017 AP Style Guide has confirmed that "esports" is the correct spelling as opposed to "eSports" or "e-Sports". Vorbane 16:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment... Keep in mind that your keep needs to be grounded in Wikipedia policy. This is not a vote on "I like it". As for the spelling, the AP Style Guide has been evaluated by WT:VG and consensus for now is to remain with using "eSports". -- ferret (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List deals with a notable topic, and is comparable with other similar lists. I would suggest removing "notable" from the title, though, as the term is subjective when used in everyday English. The standard for inclusion in the list should be notability under the relevant Wikipedia guidelines, but AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTCLEANUP, passes WP:LISTN. Essentially, per WikiVirusC. -- ferret (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I also agree with removing "notable" from the title - if eSports players can hold a Wikipedia article doesn't that make them notable by default? ZettaComposer (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note Shouldn't we drop "notable" from the title? Mere inclusion in the list means they are notable. If they haven't achieved anything, they won't be included. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:44, 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 speedy deleted Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Popovy Sisters[edit]

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

Non-notable business by non-notable people. Google search finds many hits on advertising by this business, but no independent coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniella Sya[edit]

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

Per WP:NACTOR. Non-noteable actress with unreliable secondary sources covering the subject. I could not locate additional reliable sources to verify the notability of the subject. Comatmebro (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, subject does not meet notability criteria.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:27, 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) 00:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing suggests that actor notability criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found no coverage in reliable sources other than routine coverage in sources such as [36]. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 03:18, 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.