Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 June	14 June >

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 Close. as wrong venue (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 16:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RovenRecords[edit]

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

I created this article under the wrong name and want to delete it, this same information is already in another wikipedia page under the name "Roven Records", which is correct, not "RovenRecords", which is why I would like for this article to be deleted.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Porosh Tv[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, didn't found anything in Bengali also. Article have some information & source but all are fake. This TV doesn't have license & never started broadcasting. Aftabuzzaman (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also AfD on bn.wiki. Aftabuzzaman (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --nafSadh did say 21:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ted T. Barr[edit]

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

Local elected official, fails WP:NPOL. Stikkyy t/c 23:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County sheriff, county commissioner and school board trustee are not offices that get a person past WP:NPOL in and of themselves, and neither the substance nor the depth of sourcing shown here are enough to demonstrate that he's somehow more notable than the thousands and possibly even millions of other county-level officeholders who have existed across the United States: the references here are entirely to the local media, and the most genuinely substantive thing they have to offer is that the city named an ambulance depot after him. Big deal. For added bonus, the article was created by User:Barrandassoc, strongly implying direct conflict of interest by one of his surviving relatives — but we're not a place to memorialize your own father, grandfather, uncle, brother, whatever he was. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this person is notable, then the COI is not a reason to delete. Contrariwise, if a subject is not notable, the lack of any COI is not a reason to retain. In short, the COI is not relevant to this discussion. The topic must stand or fall on its own merits. I haven't fully assessed those yet, nor looked for additional sources, so i have no final view on the decision. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that COI is a reason to delete in and of itself. However, it is necessary for people to be aware of the COI in the context of a deletion discussion. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:POLOUTCOMES; we rarely keep articles on local county officials, especially of smaller rural counties. Bearian (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could only find some limited local coverage for him, with no national or even statewide recognition. And since he has only ever held county-wide office, he also fails WP:POLOUTCOMES. Unfortunately not notable.--Slon02 (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per WP:A7. So Why 11:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy's Girl (webcomic)[edit]

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

No independent references. No evidence of notability, such as third-party comments on the comic. See web notability and book notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I hadn't noticed that this is a web comic and as such subject to A7. Recommend speedy; if not, let this AFD run. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Feandri[edit]

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

World records are more notable than world championships, as many cubers do not attend the championships. A single championship in a relatively obscure event in 2011 doesn't seem notable enough to merit a Wiki page.

Feandri is currently ranked 98th in the world for 4x4x4 blindfolded, his highest rank in any WCA event.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkwikihelper (talk • contribs) 21:41, June 13, 2017 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/persons/2009FEAN01?tab=championship-podiums

Comment This page was created without the {{afd2}} template and not transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I remain neutral on the nomination itself at this time. @Tkwikihelper: For future nominations, please fully follow the procedure at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 23:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't satisfy WP:NSPORT or our other notability guidelines. I can't imagine being a professional Rubik's Cube player (cuber?) being a good claim to notability, especially if you aren't even covered by reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a total lack of coverage in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet GNG.Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anika Conolly[edit]

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

I know, I know, how dare I nominate another Miss Universe pageant participant page? Well, because people keep writing them. Sure, the subject represents her country. But the Cayman Islands has a little over 56,000 inhabitants, approximately the size of Rocklin, California or Idaho Falls. Do we have articles about Miss Rocklin or Miss Idaho Falls? Of course we don't. Has she won Miss Universe? No, the event hasn't even taken place yet. Do we really need a page for every contestant in an event that hasn't happened yet. No, we don't. Is this article sourced by in-depth, substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources? No, the only source is the angelopedia, which is in no way an independent, reliable source, and should have been blacklisted by now for their spamming efforts. This article fails WP:GNG, fails WP:BIO and only barely scrapes by WP:A7. Please put it out of its misery. Mduvekot (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per the reasons above in the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability & no independent reliable sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Zairi Fitri Zaini[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NATHLETE. No indication of single professional start. Comatmebro (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slingshot![edit]

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

Article topic—a zine & organization—lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It is currently sourced to its own website (primary sources) and web, book, and ProQuest searches didn't find more than a passing mention of the anarchist zine or collective. There isn't enough reliable sourcing to describe the topic in encyclopedic depth, nevertheless to do basic justice to the topic. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 22:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar 22:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar 22:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar 22:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG. Lacks sufficient coverage in secondary reliable sources. Comatmebro (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added some additional search terms. As noted above, a cursory glance over the book searches reveals many mentions. I haven't delved into them to see if any of them are non-trivial. I have a COI in that I am good friends with a member of the collective--I've asked them if they know of any press that could be used to cite this article. I note that this is often a problem with journals--other journals don't cite them so it is hard to prove notability. See arguments to that effect in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salem Monthly and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vancouver Voice. Valfontis (talk) 05:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There may be enough here to keep. It clearly existed at Berkeley back in the day. A news archive search turned up a mere handful of mentions, sourced, to the newsletter of Earth First! and similar. A book search on "Slingshot Collective" looks promising.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But that was already established... As of now, we have no extensive coverage of the collective or zine in reliable sources that we can use to write an encyclopedia article czar 05:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Czar has a point. I took a closer look at the books and really found nothing to indicate notability. If someone sources it, feel free to ping me to reconsider. But as far as I can find, no notable member, no notable actions taken, no WP:SIGCOV found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE FAILS gng Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hack Murphy[edit]

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

Not convinced that this is a notable enough person. Nothing of any significance found on news sources. Incidentally, I'm not able to directly contact the creator of the article, as he or she has been blocked indefinitely. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:BIO. Cannot WP:INHERIT notability for collaborating with famous people. Outside of his collaborations there does't seem to be much independent reliable coverage of the subject. Comatmebro (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG.Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There appears to be a strong consensus against deletion with the OP apparently being OK with a page move. The issue of whether and where to move the article can be addressed elsewhere. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guangdong Hakka Mother Wine[edit]

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

does not seem to be any different from rice wine - the term itself is not in use by secondary sources. Also, WP:NOTCOOKBOOK Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a real thing as far as I can tell. I searched for "客家娘酒" and found that an equivalent article exists on the Chinese Wikipedia as zh:客家黃酒. All the search results refer to "客家娘酒" as a specific type of rice wine. I'd say this article is slightly more than a cook book entry so there's no harm in keeping it. Deryck C. 11:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Deryck Chan. A Google Books search returns multiple sources about the subject. Cunard (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could find any significant sources in English, but of course I did not know the Chinese characters when I nominated. I would prefer it be merged and redirected until someone translates the Chinese page, because there is no way to expand it without Chinese language sources, and because currently it is little more then a recipe, which Deryck Chan acknowleges. I'm not sure we can call it "normal editing" when the sources for a subject are exclusively in the Chinese langugae or I would support improvement over redirecting/merging. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains enough content and sources to justify a standalone article per Wikipedia:Summary style. A merge would result in the loss of content like the "Folklore" section. It would be undue weight to merge Guangdong Hakka Mother Wine to rice wine.

The sources show that the subject is notable so I think it's fine to keep the article as standalone. It's probably more likely that a knowledgeable editor will expand Guangdong Hakka Mother Wine if it remains a standalone article as opposed to being merged.

Cunard (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree it would be nice if someone expanded it. But the folklore section is three sentences long, it absolutely would not be undue to merge and redirect until that happens. Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "Method of production" and "Mother Wine Chicken" sections provide value to readers. I don't think the sections are so unfixable that they should just be completely deleted. Cunard (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See if we can't get a couple more editors to weigh in on this one...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Hakka rice wine, which is the literal translation of the Chinese wiki article title, or to Mother wine, which appears to be closer to the actual colloquial name. Ibadibam (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would support moving to Hakka rice wine. as this seems to be term in use in the English language. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 userfy to User:Beelyarticle. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bellybow Beely-Lee[edit]

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

See What Wikipedia is not, in particular, Wikipedia is not a web host. This appears to be a non-notable artist using Wikipedia as a web host for a catalog. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If an administrator wants to interpret this as an article about the artist, rather than the catalog of their works, then non-notable person is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, this is A7 territory. Ajf773 (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Trevis[edit]

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

Non-notable movie sound technician. Google search shows that a sound technician by this name exists. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NPERSON. If newcomer author wishes in back as a user draft, fine. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akalmand (1984 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. This article is a recreation of a previously prodded and deleted one. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I had no luck finding significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

WP:INDAFD: 1 Akalmand 2 Akalmand

Delete -- all plot & no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mirabyte Web Architect[edit]

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

Shortly after this article was created in 2012 I placed a Prod notice with the rationale "No evidence that this software meets the notability criteria". This was removed by the WP:SPA author with the comment "The page List_of_HTML_editors contains several other applications of this kind. Some of them are far less relevant than this one. So we should keep this one, too" which was an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. The article is little more than a feature list and remains poorly referenced: a press release, a feature review, and a dead link about once having received a "Best Web Tool Award" of unclear notability. My searches are finding nothing to suggest that the product ever attained notability, and the vendor has withdrawn it [1] so the article is unlikely to improve. Fails WP:NSOFT, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:MANUAL for an unremarkable product; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG.Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Friends & Enemies[edit]

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

The series was never produced. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this planned series; does not appear to meet WP:GNG. gongshow talk 01:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uptown Shopping Centre[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG. A WP:MILL shopping center. MB 19:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL. Ajf773 (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe not WP:MILL, but still short on WP:GEOFEAT and even further short on WP:CORP. Non-trivial independent RS coverage appears to limited to a local paper except for a blurb from a Seattle business journal. Sources acknowledge that the mall is big, but that's about it. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shopping malls are not all granted an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but nothing here constitutes a strong claim of notability and the sourcing doesn't really offer much more than "this exists" either. Shopping malls have to pass WP:CORP, meaning that the sourcing has to expand beyond the purely local before it assists notability. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Oesch[edit]

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

no evidence for notability .The references are not substantial -- theyare mostly notices .. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nothing has changed since the first AfD that closed as "Delete". K.e.coffman (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as it is a promotional article, which is not notable and I do not see why this was resurrected for discussion. Kierzek (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjit Singh Gujjar[edit]

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

Tagged for additional citations since October, 2011. The current sources do not sustain notability under subject-specific or general guidelines. The sources for their athletic participation are no more than bare listings with the exception of a table tennis blog. The sources on their academic work are a staff listing and three published papers on technical plant biology topics, none of which appear to have had, "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" based on citations and impact factors. Cannot find sources to qualify for notability under WP:NPROF, WP:NOLYMPICS, or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO with a good doze of WP:TNT. A malformed, promotional article on an subject with no indications of significance or notability. No value to the project at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG. Nprof, Nolympics Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. XFD discussions is not cleanup, but still can be improved. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 21:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kiyosaki[edit]

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

Article subject is a person who appears to be notable, not just for one book, but for multiple books and business ventures. Was made into a redirect as complaints about NPOV -- but those concerns should be addressed instead on the article talk page, and with fixing the article. Notable biography. Sagecandor (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable per Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Sagecandor (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sagecandor If you think it should be kept why did you nominate it for deletion? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best way for community to assess notability, especially after prior page history. Sagecandor (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, Deletion is not cleanup -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep. Highly notable. Article should be improved, not stubbed down into a redirect.Icewhiz (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep With over 100 citations, there should be no question of notability. Editors pushing to do a redirect appear to violate POV themselves. Peaceray (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Plizzari[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Very short stub lacking any essential biographical or encyclopedic content. PROD was contested on the grounds that he Satisfies applied Notability standards (highest league). This is inaccurate. Since he has not actually played for AC Milan, the article does not meet WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC) (original PRODer).[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership psychology[edit]

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

I can't tell if this is an actual field of study or a puff piece for the two authors whose works are cited. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to violate WP:SOAP per the nom. Not convinced on the refs. Did a quick check on the HBR link, the term "leadership psychology" does not appear in that article once. The other refs are not as solid. South Nashua (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this article duplicates much of the Followership article. Before deleting, I can compare and transfer to the latter article any material it may benefit from absorbing. It would be nice if some people with knowledge of this topic could chime in. M.boli (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a thing, I just read about this idea; however, it's a new thing and this page is filled with original research. "Teachers are leaders" is a fairly new concept in the literature (Farr, 2010), so this might just be too soon. I would not oppose userfication. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned, Svalbard[edit]

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

I strongly suspect that this is a phantom location in Google Maps. The article says that it is just to the north from Moskushamn (a.k.a. Hiorthhamn), which is itself an abandoned settlement. Google search didn't return anything relevant (it mostly returns the abandoned settlement Pyramiden, and even excluding it yielded nothing useful). I have checked several maps returned by Google, without success (though few are detailed enough). As I have said, I strongly suspect that this is a mistaken entry - perhaps somebody mistook a note "Abandoned" belonging to the settlement Moskushamn for an actual settlement with the name "Abandoned". (The article also cites no references.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The location does not exist at placenames.npolar.no [caution - invalid certificate], either. (This is the place name registry of the website of the Norwegian Polar Institute.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom Bosley John Bosley (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails verifiability. Apparent original research in the form of misunderstanding an entry on a map. Edison (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, the location does exist on Google Maps [2]. The misunderstanding is on the part of whoever added it to the map. (As I have said, I am now pretty certain that this is a phantom settlement.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even though it popped up on Google Maps, that is not verifiable, and I couldn't find anything in a generic Google search. —MRD2014 ( T / C ) 18:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think what happened is someone mistook the adjective "abandoned" -- per the Huffington Post article about Pyramiden, "Svalbard, Arctic Home Of Abandoned Village" -- for a proper noun, just as Mike says. Delete per nom, or maybe better yet redirect to Pyramiden. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an online map artifact mistaken for the name of Norwegian settlement. --Lockley (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lester W Lambert[edit]

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

A hard working businessman, for sure, but I fail to see what makes him truly notable. Yintan 16:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ...not notable Bosley John Bosley (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article mentions several people or musical groups (Usher) he met or worked with, but notability is not inherited. The references in the article include lots of raw URLs and I hesitate to click on them because of recent instances where some malware awaited at raw URLs used to reference articles. The ones I did click on were not impressive, including trade publications which publisg items submitted by businesses, hardly "independent" sources. He has had an interesting career and several good jobs, but that is not enough to satisfy WP:BIO. This AFD discussion would benefit from someone supporting inclusion identifying which of the sources are reliable and independent sources with significant coverage? I could not find any at all with the search links provided at the top of this AFD. Edison (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For reasons above, and pretty sure this is a recreation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wesley Lambert which has deleted the other day which may justify just going to delete now.Boneymau (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is nearly identical to Wesley Lambert. Almost all of the text is the same. A sock of User:Thebitsyboutique created it, who I am about to block. Please snow close this and delete this article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jerzy Kostrowicki[edit]

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

Fails GNG, NPROF. Only one ref, and that's in Polish. This article's been around for about a month now, notability probably would have been established by now if it existed. Google search shows mainly Wiki content. South Nashua (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The corresponding article in Polish WP cites Encyklopedia PWN. If he's notable enough for PWN, then he's probably also notable enough for us. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Under Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia (regardless of language), isn't a reliable source. However, that link isn't to the Polish Wikipedia. Here's his article on the Polish Wikipedia. Only two online references there (one going to that other Polish Wiki), and a few offline ones, but it's unclear how any of them establish notability per PROF. No efforts have been made by experts on this subject to clarify notability as well. He appears to just be a run-of-the-mill geography professor. South Nashua (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not saying that Polish Wikipedia is a reliable source; I'm saying that Encylopedia PWN is. The article says that Kostrowicki was a deputy president of the International Geographical Union (and so does Encylopedia PWN), which, I believe, statisfies WP:Prof. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - If he was president, then yeah, he'd probably meet #6 of WP:PROF. But #6 indicates "highest level", and being a deputy means there was a level above him. South Nashua (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyklopedia PWN says he's a member of the Polish Academy of Sciences. That definitely statisfies WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Included in PWN Encyklopedia. Any topic good enough for another major encyclopedia is good for us. Also, membership in PAS makes him pass PROF #3. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I rewrote the stub with information sourced from Encyklopedia PWN. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given recent edits and clear notability by being included in the PWN, the most notable Polish encyclopedia. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 23:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a commonly known fact among people familiar with the topic that he was one of the most important Polish geographers. And this is not true that there is only one reference – a reliable book is cited too. Propositum (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD G5 by BU Rob13. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Urbanist Architecture[edit]

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

Non notable article almost certainly created by an experienced SPA. All sources bar one are self-published or company profiles created by the company themselves. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As not notable. No coverage in independent reliable sources. The award (Best of Houzz 2017 - Client Satisfaction) isn't an exclusive award or one that's widely covered in the media; it appears to be akin to the way TripAdvisor gives stickers to any business that gets a high rating on their site. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is an advertisement created by a paid-editing sockpuppeteer. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Delaykiller. —Guan aco 12:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Cordingley[edit]

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

I don't feel there are enough sources to indicate notability other than local newspapers and a brief meeting with a notable person on a TV programme. They fail under WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. (As an aside, I have flagged concerns that the image used by a local newspaper may not have been released under a CC licence, as has been indicated) Nick Moyes (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. The Express and Star's coverage of her wedding is the height of triviality. Mduvekot (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom - GretLomborg (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Seaweed (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 12:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Altimetrik[edit]

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

Non-notable company. My own searching for sources found nothing that meets WP:RS. The best I found were a few articles in http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ which look like press releases (example: [3]).

Major contributors to this article are a bunch of WP:SPAs ([4], [5], [6]). -- RoySmith (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, typical startup company spam article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a company brochure. No indication of notability. Associated with a sock farm. John Nagle (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous comments. Covansys Corporation has a longer history, but isn't much better than this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikka Silva[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. One newspaper article for what is basically a one event story, a sad story but without lasting notability. Fram (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTMEMORIAL. My condolences to Nikka's family and friends. Carrite (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sad as all h**, but yes, completely fails notability.★Trekker (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ducked Ape[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG - TheMagnificentist 11:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage and none are in the article. SL93 (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet notability. Edit history of original poster indicates COI. --Lockley (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Abad[edit]

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

Can't find any news related to him. WP:NPF Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 09:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article, as written, contains no actual content or sourcing — to determine why the article was created, one has to carefully scan the infobox to locate the claim that he's the "incumbent acting governor of Pampanga". But firstly, I can find reliable source verification of neither this nor the corollary claim which was added to Governor of Pampanga that Lilia Pineda has taken a leave of absence at all. Secondly, even if she has taken a leave of absence, the "acting" replacement for a political officeholder is normally another political officeholder (e.g. the existing deputy or vice governor, a cabinet member, a high-ranking member of the legislature, etc.), not the absenting officeholder's unelected chief of staff (which is what Abad is claimed to have been prior to taking over as acting governor). And thirdly, I can't even find reliable source verification that somebody named Jon Abad was ever Pineda's chief of staff in the first place. All of which means that this is teetering dangerously close to the edge of being speediable as a WP:HOAX — the only possible way this isn't a complete crock of shit is if Pineda took a day or two of sick leave last week, so her chief of staff wasn't sworn in as "acting governor" in any official sense, but merely kept the paperwork flowing in his normal capacity as the supervisor of her office staff. And even if true, that would just mean he was doing his job, not acceding to hers, and wouldn't be particularly newsworthy or encyclopedic. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat's insightful comments and because it fails verifiability. Edison (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as G5 block by Jr abad Oripaypaykim (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, because I didn't quite understand what Oripaypaykim meant at first, a little bit of further investigation reveals Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jr abad, at which several users have been blocked over the past few months for repeatedly creating unverifiable hoax articles about someone named "John Deguzman", "John Abad" or "John Ray Deguzman Abad" — who was usually claimed as an actor, but sometimes threw in the claim to being Lilia Pineda's chief of staff as well. I knew about none of this before, but it's additional evidence in support of deletion and we should probably throw some WP:SALT on top. Bearcat (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, this has been recreated again and again under the names mentioned by Bearcat above. This is another case of a kid who imagines himself as a government official as well as a celebrity and creates an article about himself. This AFD should be used as a future reference for any admin in case this article will be recreated again. -WayKurat (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G3 (hoax) and G5 and tagged as such. Hoax article, need I say more? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G4. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Palmer[edit]

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

Not notable in the slightest, all the 'sources' used in this article are clearly not reliable sources. Originally nominated for speedy delete but decided that I actually wanted to comment about the nature of the sources so decided that AfD is possibly better. It does seem to qualify for A7 however once the 'sources' are discounted. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops didn't check for previous AfDs. Should be speedied after all. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to draft by author. WP:NPASR if it's returned to mainspace, or nominate the draft at WP:MfD if deletion is still desired. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 19:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Merritt[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable internet personality; a search failed to find enough significant coverage about him. Of the hits I did find, at best they were passing mentions or sites affiliated with him. Note that the film he supported does not appear to have a Wikipedia article either. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. ZettaComposer (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article has been moved by its creator to the Draft namespace. However, it would probably be a good idea to keep this discussion open. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to USS_Contoocook_(1864)#Contoocook_class_sloop.2Ffrigate. (non-admin closure) Nördic Nightfury 08:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

USS Tahgayuta (1863)[edit]

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

Never finished. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is directly related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Mondamin (1864), about another ship in the class, an AFD opened same day by same editor. --do ncr am 14:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What was never finished - the ship, or the article? Advocata (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all the cancelled cancelled ships at Template:Contoocook class sloop/frigate to a new article on the class, since some ships of the class were in fact buit. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree.TH1980 (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect: agree that merging and redirecting to a class article is probably the best approach for the cancelled vessels of this class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would have said delete, but will go along with the proposal to redirect to a list article on the class. If I understand the article correctly, not only was the ship not finished, but probably never started. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss where to merge this to exactly
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. As I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Mondamin (1864), i created Contoocook class sloop/frigate to serve as a merge target. This is the desired "list-article" which lists the ships in the class. In fact I started it as a section in the USS Contoocook (1864) article; it can be broken out or not according to editors there. --do ncr am 14:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the class page - this is standard practice unless the cancelled ship is otherwise notable (see for instance Japanese battleship Tosa), which is not the case here. Parsecboy (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cerecor[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Medgirl131 (creator) with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no claim to notability & A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Given the high level of participation and the sharp divide, I believe a further relisting is unlikely to bring forth a sudden burst of consensus. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 in heavy metal music[edit]

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

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

I applaud the creator of these pages for being so forward thinking, but we're not yet into June. Just because a band is in production (or even announced a release date) does not mean that they will finish the album by then. I am recommending draftification and/or userfication until we're a little bit closer to 2018 and there are actually hard dates (and actual album names). Primefac (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know it was too early, but I created this article after discovering that many bands had already planned or talked about releasing new music in at least 2018. Since we're not even close to the new year, I'd say redirect to Timeline of heavy metal and hard rock music. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per article creator above. Nate • (chatter) 20:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is not too early, nor is the now linked for AfD List of 2018 albums which Primefac has linked to 2018 in heavy metal music for consideration of deletion. These lists are annual lists that provide listings of when bands are releasing albums or doing other interesting things, and the general requirement for notability is that each entry has to be supported in notability by an article from a reputable news source, which for both articles this has been done. I am approaching this from the List of 2018 albums. For the preceding year, the List of 2017 albums was created in June, not May, so it is true that List of 2018 albums is coming one month earlier, however there is in fact significant amount of press listing albums expected in 2018. Artists are stating in interviews and news articles that their albums will be released in 2018, and currently there is no article to list the announcements. An example of other articles that are stating results for 2018 are 2018 in film, which lists some films as untitled, and lists release dates that will have some change by release date, so it is a form of corporate planning, coupled with expectation of no delays, otherwise known as business speculation. Bands are corporations too (I think), and are also taking part in business speculation. For the article on films, there is even an article for three years in the future, 2020 in film, which is pushing the edge for speculation and fact. Another article is 2018 Copa Sudamericana, which lists countries that are attending, and number of berths, but is basically saying TBA for the teams. To Be Announced is a fair placeholder for unknown details, in this case for album titles. Artists create the music, but the record companies probably approve the titles, maybe later in the process, so the bands are stating their planned release dates, but are not coming up with all the details at once. It is not too early to be listing bands and album activity for 2018 if there is press coverage from acceptable news sources Mburrell (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I say keep since so many artists have plans to release albums in 2018. There's no guidelines (that I know of) that state when the creation of such an article can be created. For instance, some editors might think September is fine, yet another editor might think that's too early, so there would be the same issue. Since so many bands are already listed on this article and more importantly sourced, just keep it at this point. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect OblivionOfficial (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 2018 is less than six months (181 days by my count) away, and many songs to be released that year are already in production. Bearian (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Your count is a bit off, Bearian, it's 211 days (6 months 28 days). We still have to get through June ;) Primefac (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All entries are sourced, so they can be verified, and appear notable too. It's not that far into the future, and per WP:CRYSTAL, this will almost certainly happen. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect "2018 in heavy metal music" - Keep, or redirect to Timeline of heavy metal and hard rock music. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect "List of 2018 albums" - Redirect "List of 2018 albums" to 2010s in music. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Primefac:, @MetalDiablo666:, @Mrschimpf:, @Mburrell:, @TheSickBehemoth:, @OblivionOfficial:, @Bearian:, @Lugnuts:, in your future comments, since there are two articles in this AFD, please specify to which encyclopedia article you are referring. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both, I would not object to a temporary redirect for either or both, if that is the consensus for now. Bearian (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Query Is this discussion to delete or redirect the selected articles trying to create a guideline for how soon an article for next years products can be created? Is there an informal rule to when an article can be created, such as saying 90 days out is absolutely fine, 180 days out is questionable but okay, maybe, but never 210 days out? If there are no rules, should rules or guidelines be created and posted, to guide users? Mburrell (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mburrell, I'm not necessarily trying to create a guideline. I just think a page that is 100% full of "TBA" (as is currently the case with List of 2018 albums) contains no useful information and should be either redirected, drafted, or deleted until there actually is information to include (at the very least, some Album titles or release dates!). I've made this case (successfully) in other venues; for example, we draftified the page on President Trump's judge appointments when it had no actual names on it, and only moved it back to article space when Gorsuch was confirmed. Primefac (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG that states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.". Of the 22 references 18 are from "Blabbermouth.net", and each one has a link to the site which is advertising. The reference to the group "Ratt", in the section Artists with material in production, is titled; Reunited RATT 'Would Love To' Release New Studio Album In 2018, with emphasis on "Would Love to". The reference for the group "Scorpions" is titled; "MIKKEY DEE Hopes To Produce A New Studio Album With SCORPIONS In 2018". The group "Testament" is referenced with a title "TESTAMENT Hopes To Release Next Album In 2018". There is a policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not that includes Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and #5 states; Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors and this article directly contradicts this. There are no improvements to Wikipedia to ignore policy in allowing these types of articles. How soon should we promote certain subjects? IF we do not ignore policy the answer would be "never". This article is a collection of material that is original research. Otr500 (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Otr500:, why should we not keep the histories of the articles in tact? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - There is nothing wrong with Blabbermouth.net as a source. Per WP:ALBUM/SOURCE, it is an acceptable on-line source, where we must use caution with BLP, but fine for albums. Since when did linking to a news source become advertising? Agreed that if a review of the reference indicates speculation and not a statement of fact, that each specific incident should be removed from the list. Mburrell (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While consensus is to keep this in one form or another, further discussion is needed whether to keep stand-alone articles (both or just one?) or to redirect them (where?)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both of these articles are continuations of annual lists, so even if the articles are deleted or redirected at this point in time, eventually both articles will be created and survive as stand-alone lists. The issues per the above discussions appear to be when should the articles be created, what constitutes proper proof of albums for release in 2018, and how much information should be available for the article to not be just vague hand-waving at the future.

Is seven months prior to 2018 too early? What is the criteria for content the lists must have before they are eligible to survive? As one user stated, per WP:CrystalBall, speculation is not acceptable for the creation of the articles, so if the news sources are speculating, then it is too early to list them. However, if the news sources are stating as fact that an album will be released in 2018, then it is not speculation. Finally, if the articles in general are listing TBA for album titles, does that indicate speculation at this point, or is a lack of album names not critical at this juncture? These appear to be the questions that need to be discussed to determine if the articles are to be deleted or redirected for now.

There might be other issues, so as the relisting segment states, more discussion is required. While I am not neutral on whether or not to keep the articles, I have tried to keep this summation of issues neutral, but if I have failed, please give this summation the benefit of the doubt and please let's discuss the issues. Mburrell (talk) 08:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The follow-up comment in the last redirect note is something for the article talkpages and not here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're going around in circles. See my comments above from 6 June for what I almost typed out verbatim again here. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

' "Delete" ' - we are not up to 2018, so I think it would be wise to wait until then before such an article finds its way into Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Timeline of heavy metal and hard rock music - the article has good references and its not really that far in the future. Worse case, I'd recommend userfing until we are closer to the date.--– jfsamper ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 23:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Crystal ball exercise. Carrite (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 107.218.152.97 (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not make sense to have an article about 2018 before the year actually began and fails WP:GNG 173.239.207.50 (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If I had to make a firm decision, I would recommend redirecting the article, at least for now. I also believe that there should be a somewhat significant section entitled "Albums expected" with release dates before an article entitled "2018 in heavy metal music" is created. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Dennis M. Clougherty[edit]

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

There is no claim to notability for this unsolved murder. Sourcing does not help. Declined 4 times at AfC Draft:Death_of_Dennis_M._Clougherty (which should also be deleted) before the user took it to mainspace themselves. Legacypac (talk) 07:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS, fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:CRIME. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this tragic killing per WP:CRIME which says "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article" Nothing here to support WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article does not offer sources that would meet notability threshold, and I don't think there are any. Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Weather Channel w/o prejudice to article recreation if and when sufficient reliable source coverage can be found to establish WP:N. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Cass[edit]

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

This article was tagged BLPPROD, and I added a source, making it ineligible for that criterion. There has been some edit warring at The Weather Channel about whether Cass is notable, so I'm posting this seeking a wider consensus.

There seem to be few reliable sources about her and other TWC hosts, so we might not be able to expand this beyond a summary of her on-air positions and awards. As for my !vote, it's ~~neutral~~. —Guan aco 02:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's notable and it has a reliable source. Diako ^{« Talk »} 08:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diako1971: The notability guidelines state "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.". What significant coverage has Kelly Cass garnered in multiple sources? 331dot (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking the article should be changed back to a redirect until she is written about more in more sources(which she isn't now from at least what I have seen). The article also seems to have been created by her husband [7] [8] who seems to feel that it is sexist and unfair to have an article about Kelly Cass' co-host and not her- but if she isn't written about as much, she wouldn't necessarily merit an article yet(WP:TOOSOON) even if her co-host(who does seem to have more things written about him) does. Her name can and probably should be placed in The Weather Channel just not as a link. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to throw him under the bus, but she has over five times as many real, authenticated followers on Social Media as he does (30x times as many on Facebook), so the statement above about who is "written about" more is not true. Keybeeny (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but that's completely irrelevant because social media is not a reliable source, nor is our (WP editors') counting or other analysis thereof. DMacks (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the Year 2017 it is almost quaint to see the editors of Wikipedia trying to determine if someone is "noteworthy enough" using metrics which have passed into a bygone age. This question would not have even been raised without your unnecessary deletion of an entry which merely stated the fact that she is a host of AMHQ Weekend. We have easily established that fact, but now you feel it is necessary to determine if there is some other reason for mentioning or not mentioning it? Here she was on NBC Nightly News, seen by a far larger audience than CNN and TWC combined:

links
{{{1}}}

But there still needs to be a long drawn out discussion of whether or not it is accurate to state that she is host of AMHQ?? That's absurd.

The question was not whether there has been a lot of articles written about her which may be linked to on a PC, it was whether or not it is accurate to state on Wikipedia that she is the host of AMHQ. So you really need to just let it go and leave it to people who watch that channel, which apparently nobody here does. Which is fine, but if you did, you would also realize what a no-brainer it is to include Alexandra Wilson as host of Weather Underground as well. Keybeeny (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are conflating mentioning her and their being a separate article about her (The latter being the subject under discussion). No article here is limited to those in the know; everyone can weigh in on any article. Again, no one disputes your wife is on TWC. That's not the issue. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, with all due respect, that is indeed the issue. When someone adds an AMHQ host to a list of AMHQ hosts (of which there are only five in the entire world), if that person is in fact an AMHQ host, then they belong on that list and your insistence that you are the arbiter of whether or not they belong on that list, even after having been presented with proof of such, amounts to you just ****. Keybeeny (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Keybeeny, consider this your formal warning for incivil discussion. Please focus on the WP content, not the your opinion of the editors. DMacks (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. This definitely does not pass WP:NOTABILITY, and the only references are attributed to her employer's website. The sources are clearly a violation of WP:SECONDARY. --Z L Media 17:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which happens to also be the case for others on the list. Apparently the fact that the employer's website (which actually now belongs to IBM and not TWC anymore) is one of the most heavily-trafficked on the Internet amounts to nothing, while a fraudulent, bot-created website like articlebio.com which gathers information from Social Media and re-packages it in a much more untrustworthy and grammatically incorrect format, is acceptable? The contradictions are mind-boggling here. Keybeeny (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only weather-personality article I see that cites articlebio.com is Jen Carfagno. There are other cites as well (that one does not look critical), and that article itself is tagged as possibly not meeting WP:BIO either (that is, it could wind up at Articles for deletion too). An argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is sometimes just as likely to get other-stuff deleted too vs getting what you want kept. DMacks (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I requested external opinion on the general usability of that site. Feel free to comment further at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#articlebio.com on that specific issue. DMacks (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weather.com with few exceptions is the reference source for just about every single footnote of every single TWC on-air personality listed on Wikipedia. It is considered a trustworthy site, even though it actually no longer has any formal relationship with TWC after having been purchased by IBM. It is quite interesting to see the other folks' entries being questioned and calls made for their possible removal now when all that was necessary was to just allow the addition of the name of the fifth AMHQ host to the list of the other four. The staunch opposition being raised here and claims being made about what constitutes a trustworthy reference while being apparently unaware of what is actually already being used here raises questions about everything else found on Wikipedia. Keybeeny (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable TV presenter. Just because your face is on the screen doesn't make you notable. Nothing independent and in depth here Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is an opinion which certainly has a valid basis; merely being on-screen does not necessarily make one notable. Of course, by that logic the others with the exception of Jim Cantore who is pretty well-known and possibly Reynolds Wolf who was on CNN for years before joining TWC would fall into the same category. The network tracks Nielsen ratings and one's reach on Social Media which are both pretty strong for Kelly Cass which is why she has been there for 18 years, but for a site like Wikipedia which insists on articles posted for web browsing on a PC which is a diminishing and declining source of information in the year 2017, apparently those metrics don't mean much. Keybeeny (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You pretty clearly identified the kernel of your concern: popularity or personnel issues and value to a business are not the same as notability, by widespread and long-standing consensus for our encyclopedia (WP:BIO has been mentioned before). You're welcome to try to push to change that, but this specific forum isn't the place. DMacks (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That is not accurate. A reliable source (have you read that page?) is not limited to those online. It can be printed media as well or other media formats, as long as the source is reliable. As told to you already, user-editable sources like social media are not considered reliable sources. If you want to fight the battle to change that policy, you are free to, but that's how things stand now. You are also free to work to change what is considered notable for biographies(have you read that as well?) but, again, that's what we have now. If you find that unsatisfactory, there isn't much else anyone here can do for you.

In addition, as already stated, citing others in a similar position as your wife is only pointing out other things that likely need to be removed. As a volunteer project worked on by hundreds of thousands of people, some poor content gets through. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have now placed yourself in the position of saying, "Sure, there are a bunch of people who have appeared for many years on a cable network which reaches millions of viewers and they have shows which are aired every day on that channel, but we are unfamiliar with these people ourselves since we don't watch. So thus we can safely conclude they are not noteworthy." Keybeeny (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:RS standard is precisely so that we are not limited to those "in the know" (in the viewing area and care to watch the channel), but rather have a more neutral basis for deciding. We are all editors, there are no ordained specialists here. Instead, it was long decided that we look to others (and have specified the standards for accepting them). That's indepenent, reliable sources vs editors' own opinions, heresay, and non-independent sources. DMacks (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see reliable sources independent of the subject, required for the general notability guideline. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So then you must also be recommending the deletion of the entry for Paul Goodloe which has three citations, all from weather.com. Keybeeny (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:AFDHOWTO to learn how to make that request if you are interested and have the time to do so. As a volunteer project, we all choose where to spend our time. DMacks (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine with me if you want to nominate that for deletion too. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. What would Wikipedia.com do without such vigilant and meticulous editors? When someone goes and completes a longstanding and unquestioned list by adding valid, proven, unrefuted information, the result turns out to be a recommendation for the deletion of the very list. Keybeeny (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the sources currently in the article. It´s easy to find passing mentions in reliable sources ([9][10][11]) but that is not enough per WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, this [12] might add to notability. I don´t think it´s selfpublished. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being referred to as a Notable Former On Air Staff on Wikipedia ( WRNN-TV ) for years could possibly be an indication that someone has met the standard of being notable. To reasonable people, anyway. Keybeeny (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. On Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not a WP:RELIABLE source. We need better sources than "us", see for example Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but the folks who swooped in and deleted the entries at the Weather Channel wiki did not impose their handiwork years ago when the entries were made at RNN-TV since names like Brian Kenny and Kelly Cass and others belong on it. TV personalities reach millions of viewers and have a large body of work retrievable on Internet-hosted video, which makes them well-known and with large numbers of fans without necessarily having a large body of good old-fashioned plain text articles typed about them. Nice job finding that book reference, though. Keybeeny (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in doubt that a TV weather forecaster appears on TV. We don't need terabytes of video to prove it. That's not the issue. Amassing lots of video is not listed on the notability criteria. We are all volunteers here and until we all get paid to do this some improper content will get through. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that there is a criterion quite plainly listed on the notability criteria whose wording goes "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media", which would appear to contradict your insistence that there is nothing notable about being featured in a most notable mainstream media outlet, for example the NBC Nightly News. That criterion is Wikipedia's standard for pornographic actors to be notable. Wikipedia has a different standard for journalists, obviously. So it is considered notable to simply appear in the media as long as it is for a lewd or lascivious purpose, but not for one such as forecasting and communicating. Not just appear, but be one of five featured hosts on a network's flagship offering and to have been for 18 years.Keybeeny (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the NBC Nightly News piece was about her personally in some way? Be careful in cherry-picking notability criteria, it also states "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject" TWC is owned by NBCUniversal, meaning her appearances on NBC Nightly News are at the direction of her employer and are a primary source. She is considered notable if "if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Further, there are also specific criteria for biographies that apply(either biographies in general or specifically for professionals).

I'm sure I would be arguing as hard as you if it was my wife under discussion, and I don't blame you for doing so. However, you are demonstrating the importance of the conflict of interest policy. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are demonstrating that violating the policy of full disclosure is better than honoring it since you seem to use it in order to dismiss the discussion from the topic at hand to keep on referring to my personal relationship with it. Keybeeny (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Additionally, the characterization you have made is actually not true, since the two networks have always been managed independently of one another and the decision to request someone to report for the NBC Nightly News was not merely at the direction of management, but the producers there would specifically request someone and decline to use another if the original one requested was not available. Keybeeny (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question for those who said delete: Are there specific reasons why we should delete this and not redirect it to The Weather Channel? —Guan aco 09:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, I´m ok with it. It would make her the only one in that list without an article, but there´s no law against that, and I think AfD:s are needed for more of them, like Reynolds Wolf and Jen Carfagno. Also, the section shouldn´t be named Notable current personalities, Notable is basically WP-jargon in context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should close this as redirect, then redirect the other similar articles as well, linking this AfD on each of their talk pages. If they're substantially the same and it doesn't require admin functions, why repeat the process ad nauseam? —Guan aco 19:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also we could include a couple sentences for each of the TV personalities in the article, similar to the various "List of characters" pages. —Guan aco 19:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If yes, but unless they fall under some sort of speedy deletion criteria, AfD:s might be necessary to give interested people a chance to separate the babies from the bathwater. If this closes as delete/redirect, perhaps the next step would be a discussion (RFC?) at The Weather Channel, something like "I suggest we do the same with Notable current personalities X Y Z etc." Maybe a "group-delete" will be agreed to that way.

The "characters" idea is not a bad one, primary sources like [13] could be used (a little). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you can always WP:BOLD whatever you think reasonable, and see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also whether to redirect to The Weather Channel article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Weather Channel. Maybe there can be some sort of section in that article on various channel personalities. Carrite (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan Janković[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is another page for Bojan Janković. Primefac (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually Bogdan Janković meets the specifics of WP:NHOCKEY, namely, 1. Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league. He played, inter alia, for HK Partizan a professional team in the Serbian Hockey League. The Serbian Hockey League is the top league for ice hockey in Serbia. According to its Wikipedia article (not a reliable source) HK Partizan has won 20 national championships and three cups, and is the most successful ice hockey team in Serbia. In 2010 he played for HK Spartak Subotica a professional team in the Serbian Hockey League. Since 2011 he has played, and coached, for HK Vitez of the Serbian Hockey League. If I have misread the guideline, my apologies; I don't usually work on ice hockey articles, but came across this one while looking for Bogdan Janković (1868-1918) educator and Serbian nationalist. --Bejnar (talk) 02:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: He does not actually meet WP:NHOCKEY; there is a linked list of what is considered a "top professional league" and no serbian league is included.18abruce (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the "linked list" is an essay, not a guideline. The "linked list" seems to suffer from systemic bias toward English speaking leagues. Since 2009 Serbia has played in the "big leagues". In fact Bogdan Janković played on the team that moved them from Division II to Division I. I agree that he did not play in the Olympics, nor did he play on the national team after it entered Division I. As best I can determine he has played about 180 professional games in the Serbian League, but I have been unable so far to find recent data. He seems to meet the spirit of WP:NHOCKEY, if not the exact parameters. As to WP:GNG, coverage seems to be about par (or a tad more) for notable, albeit non-superstar, ice hockey players. --Bejnar (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet NHOCKEY, I tried to find evidence of GNG and was unable.18abruce (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@18abruce: Most of the references are in Serbian, hence "Богдан Јанковић" is one appropriate search term. To avoid false drops it can be combined with forms of the word hockey, "Хокеј", "хокејашки", "xокејашка", or the name of one of his teams such as: "Витез", "Спартак" or "Партизан". Once a useful website is found, results can be expanded with Google's site: function. See, for example, this report of a match where he scored three of the seven winning goals (other players scored one each). The two other arguably notable people with the name "Bogdan Janković" are the current playwright/director and the late 19th, early 20th century educator. --Bejnar (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did do serbian searches, as I do to find correct spellings of names for when I detail their national team games. Non of the found sources were above routine coverage. Whether or not NHOCKEY is an essay or not, Serbian hockey is nowhere near the "big leagues" in any kind of coverage. His national team coverage is way below consensus to meet NHOCKEY as well. You said, "if I have misread the guideline, my apologies", well I tried to point out that yes, you did misread it---playing in the top league in your own country is irrelevent in NHOCKEY, not mentioned there. The linked list provided is there to help the reader understand what is meant by the different criteria, and changes through consensus.18abruce (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is listed in eliteprospects database with full bio and other info. link: http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=44461 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurohockisupreme (talk • contribs) 12:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plays for the national team, and that's notable enough Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World of Good[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. I've declined a {{prod}} on this as the article has existed for over a decade and multiple editors have worked on it implying that they at least implicitly consider it worth keeping. However, I'm having difficulty finding any significant coverage outside press releases. (Because the name is a common phrase, an online search is a needle-in-a-haystack exercise; the sources may be out there and just buried under false positives.) ‑ Iridescent 18:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes the name makes it challenging but after some digging I've found articles in Forbes and SFGate (SF Chronicle's sister web site), as well as in Time Magazine, though that's paywalled so I can't cite anything yet. (link: [14]). Searching on the founder, Priya Haji, also helps return some good sources, though often only tangentially covering this company. I'll keep digging as I have time, but I think the coverage is out there. Crow^Caw 17:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable private company / subsidiary. I had looked for sources before I PRODed the article, and I was only finding routine announcements or PR-driven coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in reliable sources. The sources provided by Crow are press releases and do not establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 AMF Futsal Women's World Cup[edit]

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

not enough secondary sources to establish notability for the 2017 event Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient sources found via Google + Google News using various spellings specific to different regions around the world. I've added a couple to the article. Hmlarson (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you post some of those sources here? Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There appears to be a rough consensus that enough reliable source coverage exists to ring the WP:N bell. If there is a belief that the project might be better served with a merge that discussion should occur in a dedicated merge discussion. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Acres[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCHAR. ^Falling_Gravity 06:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable. While I haven't really heard of this before, a cursory look at Scholar suggests this character was subject to some literary analysis: " Bob Acres is not the reputed author's original creation, but a compound of Jonson's Stephen, Bobadil, Cob, Matthew and Brainworm" [15]. He has a (short, but still) entry in this dictionary/encyclopedia-like work: Jonathan Law (16 December 2013). The Methuen Drama Dictionary of the Theatre. A&C Black. pp. 4–. ISBN 978-1-4081-3148-0., and he is important enough to be a central subject of what seems to be a teaching exercise at James Stobaugh (1 November 2012). British Literature: Cultural Influences of Early to Contemporary Voices. New Leaf Publishing Group. pp. 238–. ISBN 978-0-89051-673-7.; to find just three sources. Ping User:Jclemens who can probably dig even more sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Piotrus in that a cursory look through Google News, Books, and Scholar suggest that this character has enough coverage for an article. The article may be in an extremely poor shape as it currently stands, but the subject matter appears to have the coverage necessary to meet notability standards. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Rivals and merge the minor detail this article provides. Perhaps there enough reliable sources to establish notability. Having this bit existing separate from The Rivals suffers from lack of context that merging it does not. WP:NCHAR isn't a notability guideline although I like it's 'other options' advice for this subject. Nothing prevents breaking it out to a separate article later if the content is expanded sufficiently to warrant it. Gab4gab (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Oracle of Hi-Fi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found some reviews/sources and adding them. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An interview can be helpful but is a primary source. It needs reliable secondary coverage to be considered notable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would this or this work? One of the references I already included references the interview as well. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still am not seeing sources that talk about the album specifically (not just a few passing mentions). I'm all for keeping articles but if your scraping at the bottom of the barrel just to find small mentions of the album, it is probably a good indication it isn't notable enough for a standalone page.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already have included reviews on the album in the reception section. I've also found a 2003 article in Canadian Musician detailing the recording process of the album. This article is also available in EBSCO as well, and I will be adding to the article since I have access to it. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Birahi karki[edit]

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

No references; seems to fail notability guidelines. Google News search returns 1 result; result only mentions subject in passing. Article may be autobiography; creator of article has same username as article title. Previous articles were deleted under A7, this particular article had an A7 contested. Jumpytoo Talk 06:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The IP who removed the CSD A7 seems to identify as the article creator judging from the Talk page comment: "this is my simple and not copied artical ..this artical create me .i asked not delet this." [16]. AllyD (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to satisfy either WP:BIO or WP:BAND; also

Comment SPI now open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Birahi Karki. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant self-promotion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) f e minist 15:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Russell Kamp[edit]

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

No reliable sources found. The albums listed did not chart on major charts; the Americana and Euro Americana charts are not usable per WP:GOODCHARTS. Closest sources only mention him passingly. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple reliable sources exist. The article would benefit from further editing/expansion, but I have gone ahead and added references to the article to illustrate some of the coverage found. Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. gongshow talk 03:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in PopMatters, AllMusic, and No Depression together meets WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Knight's Cross recipients 9th SS Panzer Division Hohenstaufen[edit]

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

An unnecessary cross-categorisation created when the awarding of the Knight's Cross was accepted on Wiki as a presumption of notability. Since then, the community consensus has evolved and the awarding of the Knight's Cross no longer carries such a presumption; please see the close at Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners. Lists of similar scope have been recently deleted at AfD, such as:

In addition, I'm nominating similar articles created in the same timeframe. The rationale above is equally applicable to these lists:

List of Knight's Cross recipients 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Knight's Cross recipients SS Division Norland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Knight's Cross recipients 15th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Latvian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Knight's Cross recipients 19th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (2nd Latvian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Knight's Cross recipients 8th SS Cavalry Division Florian Geyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the reason for deletion is that this is an unnecessary duplication of material on List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients, for those not willing to work through several lengthy discussions? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colapeninsula: I nominated the lists because I consider them to be an unneeded cross categorisation; compare with Category:Lists of Medal of Honor recipients -- it include lists by conflict & by ethnicity, for example, but there are no List of Medal of Honor Recipients of X Division during World War II & similar list articles. Breaking down the recipients by such minute categories seems excessive. In addition, the Knight's Cross no longer serves to establish presumed notability under WP:SOLDIER by the Wiki community (unlike in 2008), so these lists are on non-notable subjects themselves. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. We just don't have lists of honors by unit. List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A), etc. are more than sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These lists all fail basic notability requirements like WP:LISTN. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, it's common sense as per other AfD outcomes for likewise articles. Ajf773 (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed delete of foreign unit awards lists, such award alone has been cited in deportation proceedings as evidence of war crimes, for example, by members of the 15th and 19th Waffen-SS, Latvian 1st and 2nd. I would support consolidation of the two lists I just cited into one indicating division. The single master list is impossible to muddle through. If that list were upgraded to be useful, we can revisit. It's not about notability, that the master list exists demonstrates agreement on notability. The issue is usability. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I don't see the above as a valid reason for keeping the list on the Latvian recipients. I've searched for [Latvian recipients of the Knight's Cross] & I'm not seeing sources that discuss the topic, mostly non RS militaria literature: link, veering to revisionism such as Siegrunen by Richard Landwehr, a publication that is popular with the neo-Nazi crowd. Likewise, [Latvian recipients of Nazi awards] brings up sources that mention the detail in passing, such as MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty's Secret Intelligence Service. There's plenty of discussion of [Latvian Waffen-SS members] or similar, but not the award recipients as a group, thus failing WP:LISTN. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the alphabetical listings are more than enough. I don't see any reason to have additional lists splitting them up like this. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. I had considered another relisting but with a reasonable level of participation and opinions all over the place on this, I see little hope for a sudden burst of agreement. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Redemption[edit]

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines nor film-specific notability guidelines. Google News hits indicated by previous objectors to deletion are passing mentions, and do not discuss the film in depth. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: completing IP request per WT:AfD message, rationale copied from article talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering. this mentions it, and any number of obituaries of the one actor from Star Wars who appeared in the film give a brief mention it, but I've seen nothing indicating any deep commentary. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, I did a custom search of the google news archives of dates prior to his passing and found two articles which mention The Dark Redemption briefly. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly, then, the coverage this film has enjoyed has predominently been due to the notability of one of its actors (possibly two, if I undersatnd it?); even so, this clearly lacks the WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE of coverage that demonstrates notability, or the stand-alone reliable sources. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm finding that this is repeatedly mentioned in academic books as an example of SW fan films, so I think that at the very least it should be mentioned somewhere if it can't have its own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there somewhere it could be mentioned? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as academic book sources support a small stub Atlantic306 (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Barely.

Juddery, Mark (1 May 1999), "Labour Of Love For "Star Wars"", Canberra Times

Solid in depth article about the film.

Casamento, Jo; Ewen, Amy (14 July 1999), "Labour Of Love For "Star Wars"", Daily Telegraph

article on films issues with Lucasfilms

In addition there is more weak sources such as

"Mel's brother stars", Sunday Herald Sun, 25 April 1999

Mel Gibsons brother is making his acting debut.

Just enough to sqeeze into GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which databases are you using to find these citations? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 08:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Granted I am a little bias since I don't think any fan made video, film or self published book should have a Wikipedia page in the first place, but the fact is, it only has three references. And one of those is from an obscure book of essays (citation #2). It's just not notable enoughGiantdevilfish (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ORCAleak[edit]

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

A minor incident during a local election, with no further reporting or repercussions (failing the events notability criteria). The article's name was "coined" by the author's postings on other websites, and is riddled with NPOV issues. Sounder Bruce 23:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is true I coined the name. However, there will be Washington State Senate committee hearings about the matter. As such there has been and will be, "further reporting" and "repercussions". There has been no attempt to correct the article's ALLEGED "NPOV issues". This is an attempt to sweep under the rug a serious breach of ORCA card data, against state law as documented in the ORCAleak posting. JosefAbraham 00:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosefAbraham (talk • contribs)

It is also unhelpful that this article is not able to be linked to the ORCA card page since this controversy/scandal arises 100% from the ORCA card. Hopefully SounderBruce will allow this once the suggestion for deletion is removed please. JosefAbraham 00:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosefAbraham (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a neologism created for political effect, and it's not in common use. The news story it refers to isn't notable either. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in common use but certainly meets WikiPedia standards of notability in that it's using reputable media sources and source documents plus is a serious incident leading to a Washington State Senate investigation. Read the whole article. JosefAbraham JosefAbraham 16:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move In addition to the sources in the article, I found [17] and [18] and [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. Most of these are Washington State, but not all. Clearly extensive regional coverage and I think there is enough sustained coverage here to establish notability. Article needs a different name because "ORCAleak" is not used in the coverage. MB 04:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:LASTING, the lack of recent sources indicates that the "scandal" had few, if any, lasting effects. The sources listed come from the initial findings (August 2016) and the report from the State Public Disclosure Commission (September 2016). No reporting in the lead-up to the election (November) or afterwards, amid other controversies related to the ballot measure over the last few months.
- Also, several of the links are heavily biased against Sound Transit and transit agencies in general (ShiftWA and Washington Policy are conservative think tanks, Washington Times is a conservative-run newspaper), or are simply repeating reporting from The Seattle Times. Sounder Bruce 04:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for coverage and found 16 more. You discount a few because they are "conservative". Well, since most main-stream media has a liberal bias, showing there is coverage across a range of sources is a good thing. Whether this was an attempt to influence an election, or an "innocent" mistake may not yet be proven. But there are some clear facts - the email addresses were improperly released. Your disparaging comments about "conservative" sources suggests you may not be maintaining a NPOV. MB 15:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MB. This doesn't need to be swept under the rug, it is an improper release of personal data about to go before public Washington State Senate hearings. Either I stand for civil liberties and right of privacy when my favourite people violate it (e.g. Sound Transit) or not at all. Sorry. JosefAbraham JosefAbraham JosefAbraham 20:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, main-stream media would be nice to have in this case. But a conservative think tank is hardly an acceptable, NPOV source for something political like mass transit. Yes, the e-mail addresses were improperly released, but the lack of ongoing coverage shows how minute this is. Hardly worth a mention on the Sound Transit 3 page (where I added it months ago), and not worth a standalone article. Sounder Bruce 01:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To MB and SounderBruce, I would be open to "2016 ORCA E-mail Addresses Leak". Seems to be in with the nomenclature used on the Wikileaks page. The leak was repeatedly brought up in the many Sound Transit 3 debates until November. My goal is "just the facts" and not to spin the verifiable facts. Especially as there will be State Senatorial hearings into the matter - [33]. JosefAbraham JosefAbraham 04:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, new comment. I disagree and agree with Sounder Bruce. First, I respectfully disagree "how minute this is" when there has initiated a State Senate investigation into ORCAleak or the inappropriate sharing of personal data from a database tracking personal movement, a clear violation of the right of privacy. Second, I vote to keep this article so the facts are tracked as the State Senate Investigation comes into play - an investigation that at the appropriate time when the hearings are scheduled I will make a WikiPedia page about so we can track the facts and stop the spin.

Which brings me to where I agree with SounderBruce - namely think tanks of any time should be a secondary source at best on WikiPedia. I know Mrs. Mariya Frost of Washington Policy Center personally, she is at the least very anti-light rail and most of her pieces are to push a very sharp POV. I cannot in good conscience cite Op-eds on a political scandal. JosefAbraham JosefAbraham 03:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus could be that due to the press coverage and upcoming state legislative hearings, the article stays. With a new title and no citation links to the Washington Policy Center. Thoughts? JosefAbraham JosefAbraham 06:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Gospodinova[edit]

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

Not notable female ice hockey player, fails WP:HOCKEY, WP:GNG and WP:WOMEN. AaronWikia (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete:~~ She played for the Bulgarian women's team and represented her country at the 2010 Winter Olympics Women's Qualification, but I cannot find the source of any league does she played in. AaronWikia (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- AaronWikia Please strike the !vote while retaining the comment. Per WP:AFDLIST "Nominations already imply a recommendation to delete the article, unless the nominator specifically says otherwise, and to avoid confusion nominators should refrain from explicitly indicating this recommendation again in the bulleted list of recommendations." Rlendog (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional ice hockey player for the Bulgarian national team, and article is relevant to women's sports and ice hockey. Article definitely needs some serious clean-up and additional references, but there are sources showing her involvement in the Bulgarian team (eg. IIHF) and other sources may need to be translated from English. While I understand you may be referring to WP:NHOCKEY/LA, the guideline does not include women's ice hockey leagues (eg. the NWHL and CWHL are not mentioned). Article does fit WP:ATHLETE in general.Boopitydoopityboop (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. If not for the fact that she plays / played on the national team, she would be failing NSPORT. But she still fails GNG. Maybe some Bulgarian readers could find some in-depth coverage on her - interviews, articles about, etc.? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete National team players are only notable if they played in a top-level competition, such as the Olympics themselves (not qualification) or the top level at the World Championships (not a lower division). She did neither, so she fails WP:NHOCKEY. That leaves WP:GNG, which she also fails as far as I can tell. I'd be willing to reconsider if someone can provide sources. Smartyllama (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, as a frequent editor of international tournaments I wish I could agree with the comments of Boopitydoopityboop, however they are inaccurate. She is not professional, only the NWHL is fully professional and she is no where near that caliber. Even if WP:NHOCKEY does not apply, GNG or WP:WOMEN would. WP:ATHLETE says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below". For an amateur athlete who has neither competed in anything remotely close to a high level, or achieved any kind of distinction, I am at a loss as to how she could fit it "in general". In men's play, an amateur athlete who has played at the highest level is presumed to be notable, I don't understand how a women who plays at the lowest level would have the same standing.18abruce (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merger discussions can be followed up on talk Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

88open[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG Liam McM 01:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per The Alliance Revolution, Systems Integration, Computerworld, The Law of Unfair Competition Trademarks and Monopolies, Volume 3, and CommUNIXations. SL93 (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At the very least, 'The Alliance Revolution: The New Shape of Business Rivalry' seems to show this topic received several pages of prose discussion in a book, so it seems to meet GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Motorola 88000 since the sole purpose of the organization seems to be to promote that technology. Not independently notable but should be mentioned for historical significance despite failure in the long term. W Nowicki (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this meets WP:GNG as shown above. the sole purpose of the organization seems to be to promote that technology is no reason to delete an article. f e minist 15:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Estopinan[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, Article is written in promotional and CV style Sulaimandaud (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Agree with nominator WP:PROMO fails WP:BIO. FITINDIA 05:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor promo piece. At least hire a more professional wiki-hack. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Legend of Zelda. We have a Redirect and selective Merge, a Redirect and a Delete. That indicates that there is a consensus against a stand alone article. Beyond that none of the arguments really trump one another in terms of how to get rid of it, so I am going to make a judgement call here and go with the middle course. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: The Hero of Time[edit]

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

I don't think this meets GNG. It has some mentioned in sources (some OTN now) but nothing that is substantial and specific coverage. It's been years since it released, it's clear there's not going to be more sources covering this either. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and selective merge to The Legend of Zelda I ran a proquest news archive searches on "The Legend of Zelda: The Hero of Time ", then on "Legend of Zelda: The Hero of Time", then on "The Hero of Time" + Zelda. that last search turned up this review: Retira Nintendo filme sobre videojuego 'Zelda' Díaz, Jesús. Mural; Guadalajara, Mexico [Guadalajara, Mexico]04 Jan 2010: 2. [34] and this review on Engadget Upcoming 'Zelda' amiibo unlocks a challenge dungeon, Seppala, Timothy J. Engadget, New York: AOL Inc. Jan 21, 2016. [35] Not enough to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This is cool, but... where are the references? Like EMG above, I cannot find any. As such, this fails WP:GNG and sadly, does not deserve an independent early. Strange, though, that a geeky topic like this didn't generate any coverage, you'd think Kotaku etc. would be all over it. I found some coverage of an audiotrack with a similar name ([36]), but I think that's what we are discussing here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is about a fan film, not the phrase "hero of time", which is used in other capacities in the series. The question is whether this phrase is worth redirecting (and covering) in the main article, and based on the above sourcing (+ this source), no, it is not worth mentioning or redirecting. (Further, a redirect would be inappropriate if the fan film was not mentioned in the article, which it is not and should not.) Choosing whether to redirect Hero of time there is a different, but more apt consideration based on the other sources found above. czar 05:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Netgear DGN2200 (series)[edit]

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

Article has no encyclopedic content; it is entirely a specification list. WP is not a technical manual. There is no indication of notability. Searching does turn up plenty of hits, mostly routine listings of the product at retailer websites and such. MB 04:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nominator Sulaimandaud (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G4 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolas M. Chaillan). — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Chaillan[edit]

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

References are lacking in substance. They consist of basic quotes, articles that fail to mention article subject, and 404 pages. reddogsix (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Speedy Keep': The subject has over 34 references. I did fix the 404 link. Every single references mentions the subject. The simple fact that he is the Chief Architect of DHS is notable enough. I'm getting 7 articles from DHS office to prove his notability. Please give me some time to finish the article. His 20M fund is also notable. Not to mention he is 32! There is no reason to delete the article before I am finished correcting it. I took over this work and I will get it done. Medical87 (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Medical87: Can you please explain this above statement I took over this work and I will get it done could you please disclose if this is a WP:PAID article or not and if you in anyway are connected, employed or work for the subject in question. Thank you. FITINDIA 08:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I didn't mean I am getting paid I meant I took over this page to have his DHS work integrated into the page. I am not affiliated with the subject in any way; I do work in Cybersecurity in the United States but I have no conflict. Medical87 (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 04:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 04:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 04:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This was deleted less than a month ago through this process at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicolas_M._Chaillan. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I couldn't login as I am at home but just wanted to say that I am actually taking over this page and adding 7 references from DHS which addresses why the page was put for deletion before. I just need two weeks to finish working on the new sections... Medical87 (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of quotes featuring Berlin[edit]

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

As the title suggests, this is a collection of quotes about the city of Berlin. However, WP:NOTQUOTE says, "Wikipedia articles are not ... Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." In fact, Wikiquote already has a page of quotes about Berlin. So this page is not appropriate for the encyclopedia. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wrong medium for such things. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a more extensive collection of quotes than does the corresponding Wikiequote page at q:Berlin, so this material should be transwikied to Wikiquote for potential merge per the procedure spelled out at q:Help:Transwiki. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wrong medium. Not suited to Wikipedia. Consider trans-Wiki. Ajf773 (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (a dissenting view). I think "Quotations about Berlin" is a better title, but I do not support deletion. Yes, there is WP:NOTQUOTE, but I feel that is more intended towards collections of witty aphorisms on diverse topics. Here, we do not have a "repository of loosely associated topics." This article is limited to quotations about Berlin. Berlin is an important world city, but its history means that some of the quotes bear meaning beyond that of the city itself; I mean "Ich bin ein Berliner" and "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!". All that said, Wikiquote may be a more desirable place for the quotations, though I still do not object to its presence in mainspace.Roches (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTQUOTE. I don't see any way to pussyfoot around this: we're not Wikiquote and we're not going to be. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTQUOTE and above. --Lockley (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTQUOTE. In theory, one could compile such a list for absolutely any subject at all — and while I'll grant that not all possible lists would contain a quote as iconic as Ich bin ein Berliner, that's not in and of itself a reason why Berlin should count as a special case. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTQUOTE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE - GretLomborg (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 02:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chakkittayil Udayakumar[edit]

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

I found no coverage and the article is unreferenced. SL93 (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability found in Google Searches. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 talk contribs 01:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above findings. Needs refs Legacypac (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Sulaimandaud (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Density[edit]

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

To small context to have its own article. merge to knowledge graph Sulaimandaud (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, WP:LEAD too short to be a WP:independent article, merge those information to Ontology (information science) article is the advisable way. SA 13 Bro (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete alas, another article created as the first (and so far only?) edit of a poor new user. When will we ever learn that letting new users create articles without review is not a good idea? A general concept (not proper noun) would not use capital letters anyway. W Nowicki (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. In the absence of any participation after being relisted and with no evidence of any previously contested deletion I am treating this as an expired Prod. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Dytsevich[edit]

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

This article doesn't meet the notability guidelines of actors and models as he is not covered in reliable Russian sources. Marvellous Spider-Man 08:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete WP:REFUND applies. In the absence of any participation after being relisted and with no evidence of any previously contested deletion I am treating this as an expired Prod. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman Smith (singer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Marvellous Spider-Man 08:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is insufficient coverage to establish WP:N. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Truly Responsive Web Design[edit]

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

There are some pages, but I didn't find any deep research or definition of this. Most references are part of Responsive Web Design articles. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ran some searches, this doesn't seem to be an actual term. The term is "Responsive Web Design", truly is added in he everyday sense of usage, but "Truly Responsive Web Design" it's not a distinct concept that has been written about. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete One GScholar hit == not a term-of-art. Mangoe (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unsourced original research and may not even exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Utah's 3rd congressional district special election, 2017#Republican primary. (non-admin closure) f e minist 15:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner Ainge[edit]

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

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

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

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

WP:BLP of a person whose only substantive notability claim to date is being a candidate in the primary for a future election. As always, this is not a claim that passes WP:NPOL in and of itself -- if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to get an article out of the election itself. The media coverage shown here is not strongly demonstrating that his candidacy is more notable than the norm, either -- it's virtually all local to either the district where he's a candidate, or the city where his dad was prominent enough that it's newsworthy because dad rather than because Tanner. (And because notability is not inherited, the fact that he's the son of someone notable does not make him notable in and of itself either.) And even on volume of sourcing this isn't showing anything more than every candidate in any election could always show. In fact, I would have speedied this, except that this is the third time it's been recreated after having already been speedied twice. No prejudice against recreation on or after November 7 if he wins the special election, but nothing stated or sourced here earns him an article today. Restoring the redirect, per Muboshgu, would also be acceptable — but whether deleted or redirected, the title should probably be salted given the repeated recreations. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Danny Ainge#Personal life or Utah's 3rd congressional district special election, 2017#Republican primary. Why people insist on making these redirects I create into articles is beyond me. He has no case for GNG or NPOL. But, he is a valid search term based on his candidacy and lineage. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per GNG. Google News immediately throws up multiple (though admittedly fewer than I'd like) independent RS focusing on him (there's even an RS documenting that the 'national media' are focusing on him), incl. one as geographically farflung as the New Zealand Herald. Given relatively small number of sources and their focus on his candidacy and paternity, redirecting to his father's article might be acceptable, with the info there, but that he's received significant coverage for the "wrong" reasons (and offshoots of that argument) does not a compelling case make. Advocata (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Independent news coverage in the special election. KingAntenor (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every candidate in every special election always generates news coverage, because covering local politics is local media's job. So such coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE, and cannot be used to mount a WP:GNG claim, in and of itself, unless it (a) explodes to a volume wildly out of proportion to what's simply expected to exist (i.e. the media firestorm that swallowed Christine O'Donnell), or (b) it demonstrates, by virtue of the fact that he was already getting coverage in other contexts besides the election, that he already passed GNG for some other reason before being a candidate. Wikipedia's notability standards for politicians, however, are expressly designed to prevent Wikipedia from turning into a repository of unelected political candidates' campaign brochures, so the mere fact that coverage exists in the context of the election itself does not automatically make someone notable for our purposes — because coverage in that context never, ever, ever fails to exist for anyone. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a glorified CV on an non-elected candidate. Per prior outcomes, such articles are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Tanner Ainge is not just one of many candidates. He is in a head-to-head race in a special election that will soon gain much national attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blovin93 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Blovin93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The number of candidates does not impact notability. Also, as a factual correction I'd like to note he is one of sixteen declared candidates (13 R, 3 D). Signed, Mpen320 (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2017 (CT)

Redirect to Utah's 3rd congressional district special election, 2017. His only "claim to fame" is being a candidate in an election (which is not inherently notable) and being the offspring of a notable person (which is not inherently notable). This reeks of someone putting this up as free publicity for a congressional campaign. I fully agree with Bearcat on all points. Signed, Mpen320 (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2017 (CST)
"Keep" -- Tanner Ainge is a legitimate candidate in the GOP 3rd District Primary. ^[1] Articles written beforehand should not be in consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethgordonw (talk • contribs) 19:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865681816/GOP-3rd-District-primary-could-be-a-first-with-more-than-2-candidates.html

— Sethgordonw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Being a candidate, "legitimate" or otherwise, in a primary is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself. The only two ways a candidate can get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate, without having to win the election first, are (a) they can be shown and properly sourced as having already cleared some other notability criterion for some other reason completely independent of the campaign coverage, or (b) the campaign coverage explodes far out of proportion to what could be routinely expected to always exist for every candidate in any election, such as what happened to Christine O'Donnell in 2010 (i.e. her article cites over 160 sources, because the coverage globalized into a firestorm.) Neither of those conditions is being shown here at all. (And just for clarity, note that I placed "legitimate" in quotation marks not because I'm calling Ainge's legitimacy as a candidate into question, but because per WP:NPOV it's not Wikipedia's role to decide whether any candidate in any election is a "legitimate" one or not — either they are a candidate or they're not, the end, and no candidate gets treated differently than any other candidate on the basis of subjective interpretations of their legitimacy.) Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Plenty of RS coverage.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not WP:INHERITed. Also doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Utah's 3rd congressional district special election, 2017. The community consensus has been that being a candidate for the national legislature is not a claim to meet WP:Politician or WP:GNG. The current consensus is that electoral campaigns are events and the electoral contest is notable, while the individual participants are not (unless they meet WP:Politician or WP:GNG independent of the campaign or subject to coverage that is "far" out of proportion to what is expected). For subjects running for the U.S. Congress, a redirect is appropriate to the page about the specific race in question. --Enos733 (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Utah's 3rd congressional district special election, 2017. Agree with argumentation laid out by Enos733. Sagecandor (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Utah's 3rd congressional district special election, 2017#Republican primary. This article appears to have been written as a soft campaign piece: if this kind of article were allowed, every candidate would have their own article. Per the policies cited by Enos733, should be merged. Lolinder (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice against a future renomination, though I would suggest a reasonable intermission before doing so given this is the 2nd AfD to end this way. However, after two relists and with the sole vote being a "likely Keep" it's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seyed Mohammad Hosseini (presenter)[edit]

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

Searching shows that this showman fails the notability guidelines. First AfD was closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likely keep - This is one I don't have time to do the research on so I went straight to YouTube to see the action. There's a sizable amount there. He certainly has a significant following. He did appear in a film by upcoming Iranian director, Ali Zamani Esmati, Kochehaye Barik aka Narrow Alleys. Been on some other shows as well. Karl Twist (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE of course Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Demetra Kolla[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 02:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time line: One Rank One Pension (OROP) 1973-2013[edit]

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

I don't think that the separation is required, the article section on Chronology can be merged with this. Anyways the entire merged article would be less than the max allowed limit. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 18:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 18:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 18:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- is the proposal to redirect / merge with One Rank One Pension Scheme? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 27 May 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, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think delete makes sense, per WP:PRESERVE, and would prefer this article trimmed. If an encyclopedic tone can be maintained and the timeline's length remains significant, it seems like a valid fork of the OROP article. If it is trimmed enough, then perhaps put it back into that article (this article was split off last December, I think). Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree it may be best to abridge the article on 'OROP time line 1973 -2013' and put it back in the article on OROP from which it had been split. Thanks. Jnanaskanda^(Talk)
~~Merge~~ Delete ~~back into One Rank One Pension in severely trimmed form.~~ This is far too detailed and lacks compliance with WP:MOS ~~but it has more than enough WP:RS citations to be notable, which is all that really matters here.~~ Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC) On further review, nearly every reliable source cited is duplicated from the parent article, which means that there aren't enough sources to sustain independent notability and all text that could be merged is basically there already. Nothing to save through merger. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 23:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. without merging. The detailed content in the main article is already excessive, unencyclopedic , and blatantly POV. Adding any of this would make it yet worse: all of the associated articles are a WP:Walled garden constituting a promotional effort for increased retirement pay for Indian military. Regardless of whether in equity they ought to be entitled to it, WP is not the place for advocacy of a cause. DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cant see anything of note in here that is not included in the One Rank, One Pension article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- trivial & would not improve a target article if any. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: merging the information here would simply overwhelm the main article with a level of detail that seems unwarranted. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there appears to have been a good effort at cleaning up some of the FIXIT problems with the article, consensus seems to be that notability has not been established. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ese Stacey[edit]

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

There are multiple reasons I am putting this up for AfD. First, this biography is largely unreferenced, with only one or two sentences being supported by each reference. Second, the first sentence is kind of promotional, especially the "as a means of improving people's lives". Third, this article is not properly structured, although I think that this should have little impact on the decision to delete or not. Overall, this culminates in the fact that I do not regard this as an article that should appear in Wikipedia in its current state. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 23:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per the nomination - WP:SOAP, but also WP:TNT if notability can be somehow found. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 23:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a newbie. This was my first article and was published accidentally before I had cleaned it up. It has been amended, taking on board useful suggestions as to how the article could be improved, including by complying with the house style and guidelines and improving the referencing. There are now almost two dozen references. I'm happy to be helped make this an even better piece about a notable black woman role model from a working class background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Maceo (talk • contribs) 01:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
marginal keep I spent some time and pretty much completely re-did this, so the TNT is addressed. There was a bunch of unsourced content that just cannot be in WP per WP:BLP and WP:V. I think there is just enough left to keep, but it is a close call. I would not be surprised if others !vote delete. Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided Still needs clean up. Still primary research and inappropriate refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good job has been done cleaning this up and addressing the TNT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Maceo (talk • contribs) 13:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Antonio Maceo. Newimpartial (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In light of the cleanup....
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I reviewed the references and found nothing other than business listings and peripheral references. Nothing indicate that the subject is notable. Even the article does not suggest that the subject is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as per @Rpclod: I think that the sources are still sketchy and even with this re-write it smells of WP:PROMO. The fact that it is worth mentioning that she is a Bupa physician and is thus referenced with a WP:PRIMARY source just shows that there is little to say. A couple of papers are not enough to pass WP:ACADEMIC, and the notablility of academics in general has been put into question recently on Wikipedia. A lack of independent and reliable sources still make me think this individual does not meet WP:GNG for now. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 21:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Jytdog: did a wonderful job with the clean-up, but notability cannot be manufacured. It would be wonderful if every nice person who is a rolemodel could have this sort of recognition, but we have to remember that WP:GNG is clear on the notability guidelines. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 21:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 23:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the cleanup may have dealt to some exgent with promotionalism , but it has not dealt with the lack of notability. The scientific work is negligible--her major paper has been cited only27 ties,a.c Google scholar. the books are either self published or published by an extremely minor publisher of review books for students [37]. There's no other notability -- the BBC appearance is not sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 09:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations on Islam[edit]

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

A collection of quotes, negative in tone and thoroughly worthless as an encyclopedic article. This is much more appropriate for Wikiquote and not Wikipedia. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the claim made by the user 'Chrissymad' above, I present this -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI%27s_100_Years...100_Movie_Quotes

This page lists the top 100 movie quotations in American cinema.

Also this - List of quotes featuring Berlin -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_quotes_featuring_Berlin

Therefore, there is no violation. Wikipedia does list quotations.

Also, this page lists a significant number of quotes that are exceedingly useful and beneficial in regard to the knowledge of the readers, as such it is a highly productive page.

PS - Feel free to add positive quotations. I would welcome them. In fact, I am looking forward to add them myself once I find proper sources. Probity22 (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTQUOTE says, "Wikipedia articles are not ... Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations .... If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." This collection of quotes already has a thematic counterpart at Wikiquote:Islam (and see also Wikiquote:Category:Islam for related topics). The situation with AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes is different, as that is a notable list (voted and ranked by a group of 1,500 voters selected by a major organization, and then announced on a three-hour nationally broadcast television special); that is, the list itself is notable. I have nominated List of quotes featuring Berlin for deletion because it doesn't belong in Wikipedia either. (I would also note that this list of quotations about Islam is poorly organized, being listed alphabetically by the speaker's first name, but that's not worth being concerned about given that the entire article ought to be deleted.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ridiculously indiscriminate. How many quotes qualify for such a broad topic? Thousands? Tens of thousands? More? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete 1] Regarding the claim by Metropolitan90 above, it states - are not ... Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics.

-- Loosely associated topics The topic that I am associating it with is not loosely associated. It will be associated with the Islam series.

2] In addition, it states - Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. So the content being Islam, the article can serve as the function of its directory on quotations.

3] I do not think it is fair that such is the desperation to remove this article, that you remove another article as well. One can see your love and admiration for Islam. But we don't need to sacrifice another article to remove this one. Simply add positive quotes and defend Islam if that is what you want. Of course, goes without saying, if that article is not removed, then it makes no sense that this one is removed. And you are welcome to sort the list in whatever order you wish. Probity22 (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probity22 There are so many things to address with your statements but I'm going to start with how patently ridiculous number 3 is. One can see your love and admiration for Islam. But we don't need to sacrifice another article to remove this one. This is not what AfD is about and certainly not what Wikipedia is about. My personal feelings on a subject are completely irrelevant and do not come into play when I nominate something for deletion and my bias is that I dislike non-encyclopedic content and garbage. This is not encyclopedic and is an indiscriminate list of quotes with little or no encyclopedic value and this just simply is not the appropriate place for it, per the several guidelines and policies you've been linked to. And adding quotes that would balance it out won't make it any better, just a larger mess of non-encyclopedic content.

With regard to number 2: please re-read the links you've been given.

Number one: you fail to acknowledge that in that same sentence you've quoted it is followed by If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTQUOTE tells us exactly why this does not belong in Wikipedia. And even if the severe current bias were rectified, it would still be a case of original research. --bonadea contributions talk 13:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As mentioned, it does not meet WP:NOTQUOTE, which specifically says Wikipedia is not for lists of quotes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that is, a collection of articles providing facts on different topics; it is not a collection of primary sources or other people's quotations. An encyclopedia is not a dictionary of quotations. Arguing over the closeness of the association is irrelevant, but it could be pointed out that the quotations are from a wide range of people, countries, historical periods, and attitudes, and while an individual person or closely-connected group's religious beliefs may be notable, the topic of what everybody ever says about Islam is far more loosely connected than that. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By depriving the viewers of such extensive knowledge, we are doing a disservice to the viewers. I would accept any decision of course, but we all know that this statement is true -

This page only adds to the knowledge base of wikipedia, and hence is highly productive and beneficial. It does not take away anything from wikipedia. It is merely a comprehensive addition, which would greatly help all those who come across it.

I stand by my position. The rest is up to the community. Probity22 (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probity22 Please see WP:POINT. Also with regard to the Berlin page - there are literally millions of articles on Wikipedia. Millions. No human being could reasonably look at every single one. You should really reconsidering amending your last edit as you're making some pretty incredible accusations and using Wikipedia as a soapbox. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Probity22 has been warned re not assuming good faith. Based on their latest post above, it looks like the article was created as a soapbox, which is yet another reason to delete it (speedily, for preference). --bonadea contributions talk 15:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete or transwiki the choice of quotes here looks to be original research, and there will be no end to the list. A place for this content would be on Wikiquote, so transwiki is possible.. I was hoping there would be on a book called this, but not so. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This appears to be a list of quotes attacking Islam, and not an attempt at developing a genuine encyclopedia article. Given the fundamental problems with how it was assembled (lack of attempts to provide a neutral position on selection of quotes, etc), I disagree strongly about transwiking it: that would just export the problem elsewhere. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is the very definition of original research. Dig up quotes supporting a POV, voilá! Carrite (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G10 as an attack page "that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject". --Lockley (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - fails NPOV, NOR, and NOT. Transwiki to wikiquote would be appropriate if Probity22 was interested in moving the material. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not on multiple levels. It's just a pointless collection of quotes. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom WP:SNOW. In addition to all the other concerns, this fails WP:SOAP and WP:LIST. We are not a webhost for anybody for or against a religion; we are a nonsectarian charity and could lose our tax-exempt status if we stray too far from our core mission. FWIW, I am an Episcopalian, and have friends who happen to be Moslem. In developmental psychology, it is known that 13 year old girls focus on "fairness" (Wood, 2007). Bearian (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Key International Honour Society[edit]

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

Appears to be a promotional page for a non-notable organization.

I heard about this society because, as a college graduate, they keep sending me spam. The talk page history indicates that the Wikipedia article has repeatedly been subject to rounds of self-interested and paid editing from Golden Key employees, and in its current state, it is almost entirely sourced by the organization's own website (and reads like it was written by them). That doesn't in and of itself mean they are non-notable, but most of the hits I found elsewhere were resume entries, rather than substantial pieces about the society itself. The major exception I found is this piece, which takes a critical look at the organization (including this very Wikipedia page). I'm not seeing indications that they have received enough independent notice to merit inclusion. Chubbles (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Whether it is a scam or not is completely irrelevant to whether there is an article about it. (see International Star Registry for example). And there are actually so many google hits for "Golden Key" in the edu domain that it took me a while to get through the pages that are simply Golden Key exists at the school (and here is a description) to get to new stories but they are there. (examples include http://www.utdallas.edu/news/2007/07/12-002.html and https://www.smu.edu/News/2015/gerard-atkinson-13april2015) Naraht (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both those sources are more or less press releases issued by the school; does this organization get substantial coverage from third-party newspapers or magazines (and not merely "local boy makes good" pieces)? Outside of one or two articles from student newspapers which basically amount to amateur investigative journalism about the institution's merits, I'm not seeing them. (If we found a couple of investigative pieces from major press outlets, I'd withdraw my nomination, even if it is a sham outfit.) Chubbles (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about the following investigative article from the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2002/04/21/golden-key-shows-tarnish-critics-say/fd80a6d4-7027-4ca6-b7d3-2e1bb32509a2/?utm_term=.6400b5cebfd5) another article at about the same time at (http://www.studlife.com/archives/News/2002/04/18/GoldenKeyHonorSocietycomesunderfireforloweringstandards/) and (I think) part of the article that sparked this from the Chronicle of Higher Education at https://business.highbeam.com/434953/article-1G1-146965007/dishonor-society (Chronicle of Higher Education has the entire article behind a paywall at http://www.chronicle.com/article/Dishonor-Society/18357 . Does that work?Naraht (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Nomination withdrawn. I will set about revamping the article to better reflect this sourcing, though I imagine it will be subject to furious edit-warring from the institution itself for the rest of my life, so please, anyone viewing this discussion, please add to your watchlists. Chubbles (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.worldcubeassociation.org/persons/2009FEAN01?tab=championship-podiums

[2] ttp://www.deseretnews.com/article/865681816/GOP-3rd-District-primary-could-be-a-first-with-more-than-2-candidates.html

[1]

[1]