Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 June	16 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 keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The National Byway[edit]

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

Non-notable cycle path in the UK. The three links in the references section are all ineligible - two link to the National Byway site (primary reference) and the third is currently broken (but has since been fixed since the article was nominated).

WP:CYCLING has no specific guidance for cycle paths and there is a very real possibility the article fails to meet GNGs. ↅ𝜞 _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 23:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: fixed third link. Nördic Nightfury 09:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added two book sources to the article which demonstrate notability, and here is another source, mentioning it as a significant cycle route round the UK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having a quick look at them now - I'm not certain that these are enough to make the network notable - the three passages are nothing more than passing looks at them. For example, the book linked to by Cwmhiraeth in this AFD has just a mere four-and-a-half lines of text dedicated to the network, with nothing more than basic facts already established in the article. Whilst the thought is still in my head, the link fixed by Nordic Nightfury (thanks, by the way :) ) appears to be for a shop selling cycling ephemera - with very little to nothing on the National Byways. Am I missing something here? ↅ𝜞 _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 00:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - this is a series of signed routes, not just a single route, and not just a term used on a map. It should be presumed notable. Cwmhiraeth has provided references. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bike paths are notable. Castles are notable, too. We don't need AFDs about them. --do ncr am 01:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: What makes this cycle path more notable than, for example, the local road it runs along? There are plenty of cycleways in England and the world, and very few are notable enough to be on Wikipedia - even if they are signposted. What makes this one any different - and where are the castles you speak of in this AFD? ↅ𝜞 _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 10:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A recent AfD for a similar but smaller cycle route ended up being withdrawn because it was inherently notable because of its sources. This is also the case here. Nördic Nightfury 10:53, 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. joe decker ^talk 23:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curt Gogol[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Just short of WP:NHOCKEY, shy of 200 games in the AHL (and decreasing in each season) and no awards. Yosemiter (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence this minor-league journeyman of no particular accomplishments meets the GNG. Ravenswing 22:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 20:28, 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) 23:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Weasel[edit]

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

Stand-up comedian and writer who was mentioned on Buzzfeed once because of viral fake news posts. I removed a bunch of stuff that was either unsourced or sourced only to his own social media posts. Perhaps this should be merged with The Valley Report but that has its own notability problems. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just another working comedian with a podcast. Non-notable. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourc links are there, you have to look at the 'about' page. Also, a source indicated he had the most shared satire news article of the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeahimadethis (talk • contribs) 02:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a person does not gain notability by what they share or cite. Based on what we've done before, I can't image this quite ordinary performing comedian would pass our current standards for notability. Bearian (talk) 11:12, 22 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. joe decker ^talk 23:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Md Akhtaruzzaman[edit]

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

A paid article tainted by uncertain notability. The assertion of importance in the lead is that he is pro-vice chancellor (administration), in other words one of two deputy vice-chancellors. Criterion #6 of WP:PROF says, "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post".

No independent sources about him are cited. Searches of the usual types finds plenty of "was present" coverage, a smattering of very brief coverage in connection with elections to the executive committee of the Dhaka University Teachers' Association,[1][2][3] a brief mention in connection with a national high school textbook committee,[4] and the announcement of his being made pro-vice chancellor,[5] presumably from a press release.

If the community believes he's notable, I'm willing to try to clean up the article. If he's not notable, let's delete it. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Worldbruce said it all; not notable and promotional. --nafSadh did say 02:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet PROF. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:33, 22 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) 23:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Prang[edit]

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

Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a person notable for holding purely local political office: he's the incumbent county assessor, and prior to that was a city councillor and ceremonial/rotational mayor of a small city within the county. Neither of these is an office that confers a free pass over WP:NPOL, however: it would be fine if he could be sourced well enough to demonstrate that he passed the "who have received significant press coverage" condition for local officeholders -- but there are just three sources here, and that's not enough. Every local officeholder on earth could always show three sources, so what's needed is evidence that he's significantly more notable than the norm for this level of office, not just evidence that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Just for the record, the number of sources here has been upped from three at the time of nomination to six now. But of the three new sources that have been added, two are primary sources that cannot assist notability at all: a licensing database which nominally confirms that he once worked as a real estate agent but contributes nothing toward making that fact a notability claim, and his staff profile on the website of the county assessor's office. Which leaves us with four pieces of purely local media coverage — but that's still not enough to demonstrate that he's more notable than the norm for a local officeholder, because every local officeholder anywhere could always show four pieces of local media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly does not meet GNG; and doesn't come close to meeting WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NPOL, and to the extent someone tries to argue that Prang is more notable than the average county assessor because he was involved in a sex scandal once, I'd argue that, irrespective of L.A. County Assessor status, WP:ONETHING should apply. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:45, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Relisted three times with no evident opposition to deletion. I am treating this as an expired Prod. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Gold Stakes[edit]

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

Nominated by an unregistered user. Their rationale, taken from Talk:Black Gold Stakes, is as follows: This article has no references to reliable, independent sources.2001:A61:3222:6201:D99:5CAD:E6:3AEA (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC) clpo13_(talk) 18:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are 1000 hits or so on Google for this, but not really in depth coverage, mostly mentions of the results. It does have history, going back to the 1950s, but I'm not sure if it is notable enough??

Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:00, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haunted State: Theatre Of Shadows[edit]

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

Unreleased film of no visible notability; all Google search results are either directly generated by filmmakers or are databases. Nat Gertler (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No stand-alone notability. per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 13:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Haunted State. Until more sources are available, the film article should be redirected to the film series article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm dubious about the continued existence of the series article, of the previous film article, and of the director's article. I possibly should have bundled them, but in the moment I was focused on this low-hanging fruit. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If keep, move to Haunted State: Theatre of Shadows (Wikipedia rule about prepositions) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have an article to cite but it's in print form only. The film is being made and there will be more press on it. Is there a method of linking news that is print only? Adjinwis —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can use that as a reference, the footnote should contain the name of the author, article, publication, and page number. Having said that, expect editors to be somewhat wary in accepting this as establishing notability, if they cannot easily verify it, as your edits suggest the possibility that you have an interest in promoting this filmmaker and his work. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete this as yet unreleased film that fails the criteria for such. Allow a return only after notability is established. Okay if author wishes it userfied.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFILM, also per Nat Gertler. --Bejnar (talk) 18:43, 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. A bit confusing but this looks like a consensus to delete. One editor started out as Keep and two sentences later was a Delete with no stricken !vote. I am going with the last indicated preference. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tagcash[edit]

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

Little independent evidence of notability. The references are press releases. Article is essentially a promotional piece. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is indeed purely promotional; it's one external link is a dead one, too. Scriblerian1 (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references were not press releases, the Forbes Asia article and Deal Street Asia specifically talked to the company to get facts and information to write about. I am the founder of the company and I have tried to be as impartial as I can, as per Wikipedia rules (neutral point of view (NPOV). I have followed as much as possible similar pages created for companies similar to ours. The page is purely factual and useful to users wanting to research information.. Mark Vernon (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just FYI. The criteria for establishing facts is different than the criteria for establishing notability. The references you've provided fail the criteria to establish notability because they fail WP:ORGIND in that all of the "facts" are essentially quotes from the company or their officers. This is not considered "independent" and hence fails. Please produce sources that are not "advertorials" and don't quote the company or any of the officers and we can take another look. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Timeline was written like an advertisement, but it's (seemed to be) backed by multiple independent sources, it just needs to be fully rewritten. However, since Markvtc claimed that they're the founder of the company, I'm concerned that their COI will affect this article's neutrality, so Delete. @Markvtc: If you're founder of this company, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayman30 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hayman30 please clarify your !vote. It starts as one thing (bolded) and then states another (also bolded). It's not 100% clear. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete Hayman30 (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Sorry, I misspelled the external link, and have since corrected it. If the information on the page is fine as it is, and is written as Neutral, who should be approached to write it. What would be acceptable. I think there are rules for paying others to write articles on Wikipedia, so I am not sure how best to approach this. Mark Vernon (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate !vote struck. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Markvtc: You don't have to vote twice. And yes, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Markvtc. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Markvtc|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Hayman30 (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hayman30: Perhaps I misunderstand, but are you accusing me of voting twice? And of being paid to make edits? Can you explain, please?Scriblerian1 (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hayman30: I apologize, I did indeed misunderstand, I see you were talking to Mark Vernon. Sorry for my confusion, I am new to this. Scriblerian1 (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah..OK..I am still learning how the process works. I looked at featured articles, as well as an article that was close to home that has been up for a while, so I copied the format and neutrality of Satoshi Citadel Industries, a similar company to ours here in Philippines. [[6]]. I know that X does not justify Y, but I have to get a format from somewhere, so accepted articles on wikipedia was what i was looking for. I am not being compensated for writing an article, but I will add the COI information now I know how...aye, still learning.--Markvtc (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the page to make it more neutral and factual, upon advice from WIkipedia editors. I hope this helps.--Markvtc (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Markvtc writes that he is not being compensated for writing an article. Is he being compensated by the company? If so, a sensu lato interpretation of paid editing is that he is a paid editor; just because he is being paid salary rather than piecework is secondary. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- just a tech startup going about its business and trying to get noticed. Sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH while the article focuses on promoting company's products. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. I also removed all puffery and unnecessary details. Wikipedia is not a marketing or advocacy platform. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:09, 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. joe decker ^talk 23:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goldco Precious Metals[edit]

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

This article was apparently a close recreation of the one deleted in the previous discussion. Then a now-confirmed sockpuppet came along and improved it. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drabsi Jimmy.) —Guan aco 20:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- malformed spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability criteria, I can find only press releases, business listings and social media mentions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I did not create this article, only moved it to Draft space). The subject is not notable under the WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search found no significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources so it should be deleted. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 02:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional in intent; does not seem to meet GNG. Carrite (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually this article should be speedy deleted per WP:G4 as a recreation of a previously deleted article that does not address the reason for its previous deletion. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 04:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I talked to one admin who didn't seem to think it was a close enough match. This will be closed soon, so let's let the clock run out. —Guan aco 05:21, 22 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. joe decker ^talk 23:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Datres[edit]

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

An article on this subject was created WP:TOOSOON. He is a college athlete not meeting any WP:NSPORTS criteria and while there are a few sources, they do not establish WP:GNG. Note that the cited references include a UNC roster list (#1), a baseball stats site (#5), and a tag on a baseball-specific publication (#6). No prejudice against recreating this article should he become notable at a later date. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The only significant coverage I am finding is from his school paper, which is thus not independent and not adequate to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it currently reads, there is nothing notable whatsoever meriting an article. Scriblerian1 (talk) 21:30, 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 merge to MyNetworkTV telenovelas. So Why 07:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Friends with Benefits (telenovela)[edit]

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

The series was never produced. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG. Never made it to air - nothing from the production of the show shows worthiness of an article. Comatmebro (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Good find, no reason for this to exist. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to MyNetworkTV telenovelas per Mrschimpf and WP:ATD-M. I'll note that link does nto appear in the current article. Jclemens (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge to MyNetworkTV telenovelas The sources are quality but the show simply never hit the air, so a short mention of the shows MyNet never aired in that article is appropriate. Template:MyNetworkTV telenovelas has three more articles of this same type which are d/m candidates. Nate • (chatter) 05:58, 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 merge to Flanaess. So Why 07:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff (Greyhawk)[edit]

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

This topic fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. I found one independent RS here, but that does not seem sufficient to meet GNG. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is one of many fictional subdivisions of fictional settings for D&D. It is trivial. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Flanaess. The quality of the page isn't great, I will admit, but I dispute the idea that the world of Greyhawk is trivial enough to delete over merging. Borderlandor (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's 99% unsourced WP:OR. There's not enough sourced material worth merging. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 23 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. czar 06:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hunter (comedian)[edit]

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

As it stands the article does not prove that he meets WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:GNG; A search on the web turned nothing much more than sites that all start with "Adam Hunter is one of the hottest comedians around today. He is full of exciting energy that makes the crowd go wild..." etc which is the text directly from his linkedin page Domdeparis (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 31 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) 16:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm going to comment because it seems that others are reluctant to commit themselves on this discussion. His notability is definitely questionable, but he has done The Tonight Show twice, a USO Tour, Chelsea Lately, Last Comic Standing, has two CDs on iTunes, and he's a prolific headliner. He has a prima facie case for notability, which is not clearly rebuttable, and therefore I cannot advocate for deletion. - Richard Cavell (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need reliable, 3rd party sources, not a subjects webpage and facebook page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a BLP that lacks SIGCOV that discusses the subject directly & in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:29, 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 19:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without reliable secondary sources covering the subject, it is hard to see how this meets WP:ENTERTAINER. Comatmebro (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too soon for this subject. Legacypac (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He falls well short of the notability threshold at this point; he's only appeared on TV a few times at this point, there are no secondary sources focused on he himself. - GretLomborg (talk) 03:18, 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. So Why 07:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shimmer and Shine characters[edit]

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

Non-notable OR, fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced sprawling fancruft. Any major characters can be mentioned briefly in the show's article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge while trimming appropriately back into the main series article, which is far shorter than this. I'll note that both the nom and the above !vote, and any subsequent !votes that do not explain why WP:ATD-M should not apply are not policy-based and should be discarded by the closer. Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note:ATD-M discusses "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded", which doesn't seem to be a problem here. Further, it discusses what "could be" or is "generally" done, not what "should" or "must" be done. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A selective merge would seem appropriate as the main article does not contain any information on the characters. I would also be okay with a delete, but some of the information from this list would somewhat be beneficial for the parent article. I am in agreement with Jclemens on this one. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge seems reasonable for a popular multi season show to have a character list. Artw (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shimmer and Shine, the section needs to be copy-edited as well. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article, undo the edit removing the list from the main article and edit the section down to a reasonable size. There is no indication of notability outside of the series or a need for this extensive compilation of in-universe material. A substantially shorter listing would be appropriate in the main article. Normally, that would be a selective merge. However, this article was created with an unattributed copy-paste from the main article.[7][8] Merging or selectively merging material back to the main article would further compound the problem. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So rather than merge, revert the spinout? Sounds reasonable. How about we do that and leave a redirect in place? Is there any reason to not do that, given that redirects are cheap? Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, given the number of "List of _________ characters" articles we have, this is a reasonable redirect. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a summary to TV show. Let's face it, this is 99.9% OR fancruft. Some summary of the characters is useful for the plot, etc., but there is a point we reach pure OR and facrufting, and it is clear this is way past it here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly not standalone notable, and far too voluminous and unsourced to merge. We should just delete obvious fancruft because its presence deters from writing actual encyclopedic prose instead. Sandstein 05:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 19:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless notability is established, there is no need for it to exist. There is no need to merge it unless the content is deemed important enough to salvage. TTN (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is 2006-vintage show cruft about a kid's show and its characters for sure. You can pretty much be sure no six year-old is reading this to find out the 20-sentence character description and motivations of "Genies". Nate • (chatter) 06:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- excessive fancruft, mostly overdetailed plot summary written in an in-universe style, and with virtually no sources. There is no chance that any of this stuff could be usefully merged anywhere. Reyk _YO! 09:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost entirely unsourced. Fails WP:V. You can't merge unsourced material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 23 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 Olympus Has Fallen. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 19:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olympus Has Fallen (film series)[edit]

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

We do not usually have film series articles until at least three films have been made. Would suggest a move to draft until such time, as the third film seems to be in development. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Olympus Has Fallen and do not delete, to preserve page history. Angel Has Fallen is in development, and this indicates a teaser poster at Cannes. So let's not delete this content entirely because while it is too soon for Angel Has Fallen to be for sure (and thus a film series to be sure as well), it should be readily available for restoration if the time comes. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The Olympus Has Fallen series will soon become a franchise and we all know that Angel Has Fallen is in development. If we do redirect, we should find a better title name for it since only the first film was called Olympus Has Fallen. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Not sure the title is even the right one for this as only the first film was called Olympus Has Fallen. Spanneraol (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on title even though this isn't the forum for it. The previous title "Has Fallen" fails WP:COMMONNAME as no sources call it that. A more sensible approach is to name the series after the first film in the series, which is common practice. Note these sources referring to the third film as Olympus Has Fallen 3.[9][10][11] --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Draftify after changing name. Per WP:NCF a better future title would be Has fallen (film series). Pretty much we wait for at least three related projects to make an article on the "film series". We'll have to wait for 2018 for release of Angel Has Fallen, though we'll have an article on it before than, rather than a redirect. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 19:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep two big-budget films produced and a third in development [12] should be enough for a series page. No opinion on rename suggestions. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above comments. New film "Angel Has Fallen" in production, and "Olympus Has Fallen" is not the correct series name in any case 173.239.207.50 (talk) 22:23, 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 already speedily deleted by User:BigHaz. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 NASCAR Legends Series by Winston[edit]

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

I can't establish the existence of this competiotion. Google search returns zero hits [13]. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a blatant hoax--I have tagged it as such. The only hits for "NASCAR Legends Series" I found were for a line of diecast models. Most of the listed teams are ones which no longer exist. At best, this is some fantasy thing which has no place here. --Finngall ^talk 19:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:47, 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. joe decker ^talk 23:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bamekee Toure[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY through and through. Otherwise, I'm not seeing enough here to satisfy WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:36, 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 deleted by me as a WP:CSD#G12. Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Rock Alchemist[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a band, written with such an advertorial spin that it's impossible to properly assess whether they pass WP:NMUSIC for anything or not. As always, a band is not automatically handed a free NMUSIC pass just because they exist -- a credible notability claim, and the reliable source coverage to properly support it, are required for an article to become earned. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source it properly, but WP:TNT pertains here regardless of whether they have a credible notability claim or not (which, again, I can't tell.) Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete the profile is copied from [14]. I find no other sources. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:G12. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:15, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Relisted three times with only one clear vote (delete). It's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Kenny[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND - no hits, no national tours, no national recording contract, mainly local media coverage, Rogermx (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has one Asbury Park Music Award for "Top Male Acoustic Act" in 2008. Is that one award sufficient to meet WP:NBAND? Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that one award confers notability. Am looking at this link for 2008 awards, do not see him listed. https://www.bandsonabudget.com/articles/28-2008-asbury-music-awards-followup Rogermx (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page needs several revisions but not deletion. According to this notable source via Relix magazine Keith has been involved in national tours http://www.jambands.com/news/2016/09/02/keith-kenny-announces-west-coast-tour-dates/ and has been collaborating with other notable musicians Dean Ween https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Ween Also the link provided by Rogermx does mention his award at the top of the list https://www.bandsonabudget.com/articles/28-2008-asbury-music-awards-followu stephancypants
- Stephancy, thanks for catching my error on the award. However, this is not a Grammy. Regarding the tours, they look like club tours, not concert tours. As far as collaborating, it does not mean that he is part of any notable band. Still believe that he is not notable.Rogermx (talk) 01:02, 25 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 17:40, 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 10:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the sources mentioned
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the coverage rises to the level to pass our notability guidelines on musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 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. czar 06:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WED2B[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NORG there is only 1 in depth source the second is about one of the investors and mentions the article's subject in passing. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. A search on the web could only turn up social media and associated sources. Domdeparis (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I created the page for WED2B after I saw a news article regarding the primary investor and updating his page. From there, I thought it would make sense to create an entity for the company. It's my first ever page and I have added more sources now. There seems to be a steady stream of local news appearing around the country. Could I perhaps add more of these? BritishGuy (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment hi the sources may just be what is needed but I am not 100% sure that it is enough so for the moment I would prefer other editors to give their opinion rather than withdrawing the nomination. I would say that the article in bridal buyer is a bit more negative than the criticism section but that can be easily cleaned up. If the decision is keep the article will have to be moved to be in line with WP:TMRULES. Domdeparis (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; just a minor chain. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails Wp:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH in that the company has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I could only find passing mention of the company in business listings and social media. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 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) 00:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pluribus International Corporation[edit]

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

American security services company. The article consists almost only of information about its arrested employee Reality Winner. This does not establish notability, per WP:GNG, of the company as such. Sandstein 09:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Reality Winner. Fails WP:NCORP, although if enough deep sources turn up then it can be kept. Widefox; talk 15:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- only known for its connection to Winner. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my hope was that I could find coverage of them- they exist, are in an interesting area (government contracts)- but I haven't found much. I'm surprised by that. I'll continue to poke around for sources on them. Anyhow, as long as this isn't an early-close, it'll be justified as a delete. tedder (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "substantiating links between Russia and recently inaugurated President Donald Trump" statement not factual and is misleading. Leaked document never mentions Trump or administration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C1:8702:8130:21F5:CD53:709E:A698 (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP user. I edited the part of the article you mentioned. According to WP:RS, some of the information she disclosed pertains to investigations about whether Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. I tried to reflect what the media actually reported, rather than suggesting that the Russians influenced the election so that Trump won. I agree that that is not what was reported. I added some information to the article too. I don't know whether we should keep or delete this article. I do agree with what tedder suggested, that we poke around a little bit more, and give the proper time given that this isn't an early close.--FeralOink (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I changed my mind from a few minutes ago. Pluribus International is owned by the son of a well-known spy novelist, reporter and CIA employee, Charles McCarry. It seems like there are adequate reasons to suggest the company is notable.--FeralOink (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are the sources that suggest notability? If the son is notable, should we not hve an article about him instead? Sandstein 07:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The father already has a BLP article, see Charles McCarry. I made edits to this article which might be useful in deciding whether to keep it.--FeralOink (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which are the sources that cover the company, specifically, rather than its owner or the leaking case? Sandstein 20:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Google news [15] search shows that the Corporation became notable because of the case of Reality Winner. However, the sources provide little info about the company. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

became "notable" - as in passes GNG and WP:NCORP? (per Sandstein WP:NOTINHERITED) Widefox; talk 22:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect (and to where)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I don't see any redirect votes. It's still a "Delete" for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 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. After three relists I'm calling this a delete, but a damned weak one. There is only one delete vote other than the OP. But the sole Keep was also a weak vote and predicated on a lets wait and see if there are any Russian sources. A subsequent comment by a Russian speaking editor indicates there are not. Still if someone wants to discuss this drop me a line on my talk page. If not for the weak keep vote I'd call this a soft delete as a de-facto expired Prod. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Virezoub[edit]

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

Over the top promotion for non notable musician. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Sourced to primary and shops. A search found nothing better although my Russian is lacking. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The need to examine Russian-language sources suggests that there may be enough content to justify a keep. Article needs work and is not well-written, but content is not the same as notabiity. I'd hesitate to delete until someone who can read Russian looks at this; I googled the cyrillic name and obtained additional hits, but could not assess content as I cannot read Russian. Montanabw^(talk) 04:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw. Can you point to a few you think might be ok. My searches came up with nothing that seemed good. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read Russian, but there were some cyrillic entries that didn't look like facebook or wikipedia mirrors. I'm not going to the mat on this one, but I don't want to have a western-bias here and prefer to err on the side of caution at AfD. Perhaps we can locate someone who reads Russian to do a skim. Montanabw^(talk) 22:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My search for "Ольга Вирезуб" got zero hits. Without quote got a bunch but Ольга and Вирезуб are both relatively common separately causing those hits. "Ольга Яковлевна Вирезуб" got two pages, all basically wikipedia. None that looked like they might be good. Factiva only came up with a business registration. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not one I'm going to the mat on, whatever the consensus becomes, I can live with the outcome. Montanabw^(talk) 02:30, 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)}}} 05:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources at all other than wiki clones in English and German. No longer a penguin (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – http://www.klassika.info/Komponisten/Virezoub_Olga/index.html is not a Wiki clone; that entry alone convinced our German colleagues to keep her article in August 2008. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A listing is not "Significant coverage" per WP:GNG and I don't see anything on the listing itself to suggest that she passes WP:NMUSIC. All it does is confirm that she does exist and is, in fact, a composer. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow someone speaking Russian to take part in the discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on relisting As duffbeerforme already pointed out, these are no Russian sources to look at (I speak some Russian), a search for her name in Cyrillic brings up nothing at all (except wikipedia) when searching for a full string. When searching for Ольга Вирезуб without quotes, you do indeed get a lot of sources in Cyrillic, but exactly 0 seem to be about her. Olga is a common name, while Virezoub is a fish. No longer a penguin (talk) 20:19, 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. joe decker ^talk 23:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R2DA - Roblox[edit]

(Find video game sources: "R2DA - Roblox" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Article topic (user-created content for a video game) lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Sourced entirely to primary sources, not even worth redirecting to Roblox. czar 18:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 18:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty much a straight up copy of the primary source - promotional with no indication of notability.PRehse (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no claim to notability. There seems to be no independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG for starters. "Reason to Die Awakening" should do just that. --Bejnar (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no third-party independent reliable sources to establish notability. TheDeviantPro (talk) 06:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be entirely self-promotinal and lacks reliable sources. Searingjet (talk) 20:24, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symington's[edit]

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

It's an old company with presumably some interesting history, but all I see are media mentions in passing, no in-depth treatment anywhere. Occasional qualifications as a 'major UK food company' etc. are not sufficient, I am afraid - a major XYZ company in FOO country is marketing speech. Can anyone find any indication of notability, and serious sources about its importance and hence, notability? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The author of the article has provided three references on the talk page, rather than in the article. However the first comprises four paragraphs in the Daily Mirror announcing a new factory, the second is a trivial mention saying that they were too busy to provide a spokesperson on the subject of food labelling, and the third is five paragraphs talking about the business moving its production of noodles back to the UK. These are standard corporate news type articles rather than providing any in depth coverage on the subject. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more sources exist; several notable brands. Peter James (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Peter James That response is a Classic! Nevertheless, any examples? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please cite those sources, don't just assert their existence. Don't be shy, no need to hide them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the article currently makes no claim of notability; A7 material at the moment & no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:02, 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 18:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete It does seem that a company that has survived for 190 years (since 1827) should have some notable history. So far all that I have found are mentions in passing and old advertisements. Currently fails WP:CORP. No bar to recreation if suitable sources are found. --Bejnar (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote to the company asking if they could provide any third party sources. They replied simply, "The history or Symington's can be found at http://symingtons.com/about-us/ " In reading their history, it seems that they played quite a role in the development of modern food-stuffs, but where are the independent sources. Industry magazines? Old newspapers? --Bejnar (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We can use primary/non-independent sources to confirm facts, but they do not establish notability. Independence is needed to vet those facts. Who knows to what degree the company history on the company's pages is PR-massaged? We need someone else to say that they played a significant role, etc. If nobody bothered to say so over that 190+ years, well... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 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. postdlf (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Premier League results[edit]

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

PROD contested without reasoning. The article is not notable per WP:NOTSTATS and consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 88#2014-15 Premier League Results, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 92#A league results), and previous AfDs have resulted in deletion. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016-17 Premier League results, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014-15 Premier League Results, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 A-League results, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Indian Super League fixtures, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015-16 Pre-season friendly fixtures for Primera División clubs (women), which all were deleted. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous consensus. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous consensus, the season article will cover this off anyway. Fenix down (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, the results will already be covered in the main article which makes trivial statistical articles such as this rather unneeded. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant Spiderone 17:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This isn't really needed as it will be covered by the main article and the seasonal articles of the teams competing in the competition. Matt294069 is coming 03:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per prior consensus. Giant Snowman 09:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Matt294069 ⇒ Chris0282 (talk) 19:17, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spatial hub[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 17:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a non-notable website. The name should be "Scottish Spatial Data Infrastructure" if it is kept and discuss the entire initiative, not just the web portal. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete The "Scottish Spatial Data Infrastructure" is something completely different and is a website owned and managed by the Scottish Government. It is only a metadata register of all publically available spatial data in Scotland. The Spatial Hub (owned, run and managed by the Improvement Service) is THE portal for Scottish Local Authorities to update their actual data and for registered users to access the national data via a WMS/WFS url. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.147.94.161 (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too specific to ever become notable; fails WP:GNG. We should first have an article on the "Improvement Service" (homepage) if they are notable. --Bejnar (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 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 delete. Hut 8.5 21:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CinemaItaliano.info[edit]

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

No evidence of notablity. Maproom (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:A7 + WP:G11. Tagged as such by myself. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:26, 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. joe decker ^talk 23:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Myron Boadu[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that he [hasn't] played in fully professional league yet. Fails WP:NFOOTY. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:31, 15 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) 08:35, 16 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) 06:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at the age of 16 definitely WP:TOOSOON, article can always be recreated if and when subject meets WP:NFOOTY & WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:57, 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 delete. joe decker ^talk 23:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BillSaveUK[edit]

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

Of the 8 sources 1. is a passing mention 2. 3. 4. don't mention the subject of the article. 5. is churnalism or a press release 6. is proof that it is a member of NAPIT 7.is the subject's own web site 8. doesn't mention the subject and is a brochure for an energy efficiency program. Fails WP:NORG notably WP:ORGDEPTH fails WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP, lacks in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability cannot be inherited from former company Mark Group, which had a significantly different business model, was much larger and had a more varied clientele. --Bejnar (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nothing to "save" here :-). No sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:18, 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 as naked vandalism (CSD G3) by Ponyo. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geordie Haka[edit]

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

Article gives no evidence of notability beyond local significance BilCat (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Trivial subject created by banned user who is clearly not here to edit constructively. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I support Speedy delete also. I nominated the article for deletion about 20 minutes before the creator, User:Dinglebat500, was indefinitely blocked, or I might have went straight for CSD. - BilCat (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. Bearian (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's famous. So why delete? There are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia that are insignificant beyond locality. SamRathbone (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is just vandalism by a sock. Speedy deleted as WP:CSD#G3.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:58, 22 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. Strong keep consensus. Additionally no clearly valid deletion criteria was cited by the OP. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tallulah (singer)[edit]

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

We'd like this Wikipedia page deleted as the information is not correct, and the artist is in the process of re branding. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amymills (talk • contribs) 15:35, June 15, 2017 (UTC)

Comment Nominator is a new account with no edits other than to this topic. Discussion page was created without the afd2 template and not transcluded to a daily log page. I have completed the nomination as a courtesy, but no policy-based reason for deletion has been offered here. If the subject is changing her stage name, and this change is well-documented, then the page can simply be moved. --Finngall ^talk 16:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also discussion with nominator on my talk page. --Finngall ^talk 18:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as the nominator's concern can be easily remedied through editing and/or moving the article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Sources to meet WP:GNG and even WP:MUSICBIO are lacking. No need to move the article. It would be nice to know how far the "rebranding" of the artist has gone and who Amy Mills is in relation to the subject. And since sources are lacking for this subject, I suspect that sources for the rebranded subject would be similarly lacking and so I would advise the editor not to even try to create an article for the singer until GNG is met. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Subject was formerly known as Syron and there are some sources for the subject under that name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Walter Görlitz: Amymills has stated on my talk page that she is "from the artists team". --Finngall ^talk 22:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I just read that. Thanks. COI. I'm OK with Move to the correct location, but there's no way that we are allowing the team to dictate what does and does not go into the article. Right now, without good sources, most of the content (notably genres) are unsourced and ready to be deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could be edited or moved, and I'm uncomfortable taking direction for the subject's marketing team. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:14, 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. So Why 07:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Kilonzo[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. (It's also presently an uncited BLP, which could be PRODed, but in the past it hasn't been.) Pinkbeast (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A7. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to speedy. I don't see evidence of notability, I did see a pair of taglines on Arabic articles, but nothing more, no "signficant coverage". --joe decker ^talk 03:36, 23 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. joe decker ^talk 23:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Berlin[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable person. No meaningful sources in article, nothing better found online. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete He's a maybe on #3 of WP:CREATIVE and a maybe on #1 of WP:ANYBIO. I am firmly on the fence, with some work, this one might work, but I think it probably wouldn't. Right now, it doesn't meet the grade. South Nashua (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Someone who claims to be be the subject has requested deletion on the talk page. Therefore, delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:57, 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 delete. —SpacemanSpiff 03:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chetan Cheetah[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. Brave soldier, heartwarming story, so this received some attention in his country (though "rose into fame globally" is a slight exaggeration), but doesn't go beyond that. Fram (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Brave soldier who was hit by nine bullets during a gun battle with terrorists and survived but it is WP:BLP1E. FITINDIA 13:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 13:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Fails WP:SOLDIER. Insufficient evidence of notability. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SOLDIER, WP:GNG and global WP:SIGCOV--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Case of WP:BLP1E, doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:47, 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. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 10:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically for Engagement Act[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and is just a proposal not an act. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- It's a significant bill tabled as a proposal to be an act, and there are plenty on Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_legislation_of_the_115th_United_States_Congress. However, it is particularly significant from a legal/political/social media/Technology viewpoint because it advocates the recording the social media, of a president, in the same way Governmental Hansard or parliamentary minutes are recorded. It's the first legislation in the world proposed to do this. From a social media/telecommunications point of view, and from a governmental point of view, this is a signification proposal. It has been covered by technology sites for the tech angle (Mashable and Ars Technica) as well as many RS including the The Guardian, Washington Post, Forbes, Reuters, etc. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is already significant coverage, so it passes WP:GNG. Furthermore, merging it with the related Presidential Records Act would be possible alternative for deletion. Ceosad (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG due to the coverage at the very minimum. Personally, I think it's good to err on the side of caution toward deleting national-level legislation unless lack of notability is clear. South Nashua (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 13:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 14:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 14:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Reuters, The Washington Post, and CNN. In addition, legislation in United States Congress means lasting significance, especially combined with the source coverage. Sagecandor (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Too soon to say. If the act passes then I'd say keep. If the act fails in a sustained blaze of widely covered argument then also maybe keep. If not, it looks like a minor stunt with some minor notability. In that case it might deserve a mention in an article but not one of its own. The facts that will decide whether this is more than a stunt are not yet in. I say we wait and see. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep - There ere dozens of reputable sources from around the world that have covered this subject. It easily meets WP:GNG.It is a bill, the common name of which includes the word "act", not "proposal".- Mr X 18:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Clearly passes GNG, and as a proposal formally introduced into a national legislature, would deserve a presumption of notability. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not happy with this being a snow result. There is a discussion to be had, we just don't seem to be having it. As MrX says, this is a bill, not an act, until it is passed into law and a bill is a proposal for an act. Do we really cover all proposed legislation of this type in all countries? How may such bills go before the world's various national assemblies? And how many of those do we cover even after they are passed into law, which this one might even not be? If the answer is "not a great proportion" then why is this a worthy exception? Because it has significant (and I think it has to be serious to be significant) coverage or just because the media thinks this is a hilarious stunt to fill a little space with? If it really is the first, and if we would be covering it even without it having a comedy name, then fair enough but if it is the later then we have to put aside our love of a good joke at the orange overlord's expense and let it go for the good of Wikipedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer here is intrinsic to the nature of the bill. This particular bill is the first proposed legislation in the world to move private social media of the leader of a national government into offcial communication status, including establishing rules that it can't be deleted. It's important in a beuraucratic sense, it's important in terms of social media, electronic communication - and in terms of information access. In ways, whether it was to do with Trump, or any other national leader, it would still be an important piece of legislation, and that is no doubt why it has been covered by Reuters, Washington post, Forbes.. as well as various technology Journals etc. The fact that it is a bill is not important, the important thing is its' the first legislation to propose this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment wait, too soon to decide either way. If it becomes law, keep, if it does not redirect to Mike Quigley (politician), and add a short paragraph to that article.--KTo288 (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have any policy that says a bill has to become a law before being the subject of an article. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was created before it ever became law, because it was notable before it was signed into law. Email Privacy Act is still not a law, and may never become one, but it passes WP:GNG.- Mr X 16:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if it doesn't become law, this article will be an important research tool for historians for decades to come. RobertLovesPi (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curien Kaniamparambil[edit]

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

The article was de-PRODed without being fixed. ~~It falls into WP:A7 at the moment due to the lack of sources.~~ If someone here would like to improve it to a point where it passes WP:GNG it would be greatly appreciated, otherwise it should be deleted. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 11:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 13:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 13:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, it's not A7, because it asserts significance. It appears to be a (quite literally, in this case) hagiography, either written or translated by someone with a less than ideal command of English. I'm not familiar with the specific denomination, but if substantiated, these assertions would appear to put him past WP:CLERGY. Note that since he appears to have died a couple of years back, this doesn't have BLP-level cleanup urgency. Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: You're quite right. The problem that I have is sources - not enough independent and reliable sources to confirm significance. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 18:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jclemens, he appears to be part of the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church (though the English is so bad it could be one of the other Malankara churches). The English is very bad on all the sites that are coming up about him, but I am fairly confident that he was not a bishop (no mention of episcopal ordination anywhere and he is married), which means WP:CLERGY wouldn't come into play. That being said, he appears to pass WP:ANYBIO based on this source. Being awarded the highest honour allowed to a non-bishop in an international church passes 1 and almost certainly passes ANYBIO 2 based on the information that is available. Its not good sourcing, but I suspect the good sourcing that we would have on him isn't likely to be easily found in professional quality English. Also as a note, the vast majority of the text was a copyvio, and I've removed it and requested revision deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Notable as a bible translator. If "very rev" is correct, he should be holdin g a post equivalent to the dean of a CAthedral. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Art Loss Register[edit]

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

Company founded in 1991 which supposed to track stolen art -- for a fee -- but I see no evidence that it's well-known or successful. Very few references, and what few are reliable are mentions of the organization which spun off this as a business -- and which organization (International Foundation for Art Research) doesn't appear to be very notable, either. Article created as part of a spamming ring awhile back. Calton | Talk 10:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Plenty of references - the story in the Art Newspaper about complaints that it is abusing its dominant market position internationally is itself enough to demonstrate notability. Long-established, used by all the big auction houses etc. The position of the newer and smaller International Foundation for Art Research is much more precarious, so why nominate this and not that? Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no doubt that this is a notable organization. They even have a stand at the TEFAF (http://tefaf.artsolution.net/gallery/The-Art-Loss-Register). --Edelseider (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable organization. plus stand at TEFAF BabbaQ (talk) 22:08, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Pataki[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Of the 10 sources 1. is a human interest story in a local paper following her move to Chicago; 2. and 3. are from the subject's own website; 4. is not in-depth and just a passing mention in a magazine on christian retailing with a circulation of 7000 copies most of which are sent to christian retail stores and churches [16] ; 5. 6. 7. and 10. are from her publishers so not independent; 8. is a blog written by the subject about herself; 9. is the website of a program she founded so not independent. Domdeparis (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 13:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 13:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 13:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes #3 of WP:AUTHOR per [17] A quick search shows other in-depth coverage of this author leading me to say that @Domdeparis: failed WP:BEFORE. Toddst1 (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddst1: thanks for the advice but Variety says "The company has optioned “The Accidental Empress” and “Sisi: Empress on Her Own.” (my emphasis) and WP:AUTHOR #3 states "such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work" (my emphasis) so this is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON for this criteria. So no under that criteria she does not pass yet but there may be enough reviews out there for this novel but for the moment I could only find Forbes contributors (notoriously unreliable as an independent source) blogs and presse releases. Maybe you can find something else. Domdeparis (talk) 08:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's TOSOON to pass #3, she passes WP:GNG with [18], [19], [20] and [21] Toddst1 (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has plenty of reviews in RS, several of her books were confirmed bestsellers. I've added the reviews and more RS to the article. She passes CREATIVE. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this shows Pataki's The Traitor's Wife debuting at no.5 of NYT bestselling list (oh dear, with 50 shades at no. 4 after 101 weeks!:)), with reviews from kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Lincoln Journal Star, it meets WP:NBOOK and could have its own standalone article (yes some editors are uncomfortable with 'trade' reviews, nevertheless....), her other books also have a number of reviews, so its a keep as meeting no.3 of WP:NAUTHOR. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:02, 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. joe decker ^talk 23:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ahsan Tahir[edit]

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

autobio by User:Ahsantahirat. most of the cited sources are not reliable. he has received some news coverage based on a single event. fails per WP:BLP1E Saqib (talk) 08:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. The hacking event sounds a lot more important than the subject/person of the article. Daphne Lantier 21:36, 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 12:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 07:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as BLP1E, and even the event wasn't particularly notable with only one good source (NBC). — Quasar G. 15:41, 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 as no claim of significance (deleted by Bbb23). (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1aim[edit]

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

Fails to credibly establish notability for a corporation (WP:NCORP). Was tagged as CSD A7, but that was removed by a WP:SPA who wasn't the article creator. Murph9000 (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Murph9000 (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Murph9000 (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia does not accept corporate advertisements. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:13, 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 as promotional (G11). (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Budi Margono[edit]

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

Subject doesn't meet WP:PERSON. Article has long been used to promote the subject (see history). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per WP:SNOWBALL Domdeparis (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even the previous, auto-promotional version does not meet the notability criteria. -- Luk ^talk 08:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A7. Once you strip out the unsourced puffery, there's nothing left. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: 'multiple criteria ([[WP:CSD#A7|A7]], [[WP:CSD#G12|G12]])'. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be written by the subject. I can find no reference to him in either Chinese or Indonesian Wikipedias. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:53, 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. joe decker ^talk 23:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Glass Ceiling Project[edit]

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

Non-notable album by non-notable musician where the artist has no page. Should have gone A9 but speedy tag removed. See sister album AfD here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IV_Life... Legacypac (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a nn notable album by an nn performer. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note there was additional support to delete this page at the linked sister article. This should be closed not relisted. Legacypac (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. - TheMagnificentist 19:56, 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. This is a rather weak delete given the low participation. If it were not for a challenged Prod in the editing history I'd label this a "soft delete." But there are no Keep votes after two relists so here we are. Even so, if anyone has any heartburn over this drop me a line on my talk page. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Nagendra Perumal[edit]

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

Not notable as per WP:GNG. One of literally millions of temples in India. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 31 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) 16:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 07:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is not presumed notable just because it is a temple. Fails the GNG. — Quasar G. 16:02, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Twice relisted and the only vote is delete. It's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Valley (band)[edit]

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

Article about a band, with no strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC and very little reliable source coverage to support it. The strongest notability claim here is charting on Spotify, a BADCHART that cannot count toward passing the charting criterion at all -- and apart from a single feature on a local news program in their own hometown, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources like Facebook pages, press release distribution platforms, concert listings directories and podcasts that cannot assist in supporting notability. As always, Wikipedia is not a free PR platform on which every band is automatically entitled to have an article just because they exist -- a proper claim of notability, and proper reliable sourcing to support it, must be present for an article to become earned, but nothing here satisfies either part of that equation. Bearcat (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 31 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) 16:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no claim to notability and largely cited to non-independent and / or primary sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 07:42, 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. No prejudice against userfication if requested. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On External Transition[edit]

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

As stated by the creator this is a simple review of a book. fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK Domdeparis (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 31 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) 16:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 07:42, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. After two relists and with the only vote being delete it's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brava Gente[edit]

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

Unremarkable television program. No evidence of notability demonstrated; existence does not equal notability. My own search for sources turned up nothing in any language I could read, maybe others will be more successful. If not, then this article should be deleted. KDS4444 (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:43, 31 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) 16:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 07:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at a push this could pass WP:NTV, but there is so little coverage that it fails the GNG. — Quasar G. 16:06, 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 keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joakim Brodén[edit]

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

Redirect to his band was reverted twice. Recent edits have not made this more notable, the sexy detail about his vest notwithstanding. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are a few sources. Of note is that Loudwire is considered to be a reliable source as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hartmann, Graham (September 22, 2015). "Sabaton's Joakim Broden Walking 342 Miles to Next Gig". Loudwire. Retrieved June 7, 2017.
Ramanand, Liz (May 7, 2015). "Sabaton's Joakim Broden Talks 'Heroes,' History + More". Loudwire. Retrieved June 7, 2017.
"GLOSA: Joakim Brodén je slavičím vyslancem metalového světa" (in Czech). Novinky.cz. Retrieved June 7, 2017.

Weak Keep I don't know the subject's music. There is only a database of the subject's involvement at AllMusic, but that's common for metal musicians. I ran a Google search and found the following coverage. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] ~~[29]~~. It's not clear if they are all RS, and I'm fairly certain that at least one is a glorified music blog, but loudwire and metalinsider are not. While the article is poorly sourced, that's not a criteria for deletion, and that's discussed at WP:N. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - clearly notable. but article needs work and expansion. but I do not see that as a reason for deletion as of now. he seems to pass WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Y'all, seriously. There's one single interview, in which he is interviewed as the singer of his band, and then there's a story of a dozen sentences about him getting drunk, losing a bet, and walking to a show? Walter Görlitz, I think I know how discussions go, thank you--but you know you can't call someone notable because a few metalzines interviewed him (note that an interview is not in-depth discussion of a topic). (Nuclear Blast is a record label.) BabbaQ, he is obviously not "clearly notable"--I'd love for you to produce some real sources that discuss this man, not the singer of the band. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Drmies: It seems as though the subject is moderately notable from what I provided. And yes, metalzines that cover niche topics, are enough. Yes, Nuclear Blast is a record label, and so that ref should be excluded, but while looking at the subject's recordings I found http://www.allmusic.com/album/coat-of-arms-mw0001999035, https://www.thoughtco.com/heavy-metal-reviews-4132871, http://heavymetal.about.com/od/sabaton/fl/Sabaton-Heroes-Review.htm, and charting on [:The Last Stand (Sabaton album)]. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cool--the article certainly needs improvement, esp. better sourcing. But those won't help Joakim or his vest, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish Keep – Squeaks by WP:MUSICBIO. The subject has also received a lot of coverage in Blabbermouth, which is considered to be a reliable source per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, although some of these are interviews. Last, but not least, I added one secondary and one primary source to verify content about the vest. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~It is my understanding that membership in a notable band is in itself an adequate criterion for notability under the relevant specialised guideline. In addition,~~ There is a solid trove of coverage of this person in the Swedish press. I noticed that what look like decent sources are listed under Further reading. One of them concerns a story also recounted in this article in a mainstream newspaper, which I hesitate to overbalance the article with, but it can serve to illustrate that he meets GNG: apparently, while impaired, he undertook to walk to the band's next gig, unaware it wasn't even in Sweden but in Trondheim. I have added one less anecdotal reference. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yngvadottir: I don't believe your first sentence is correct. Point #6 of WP:MUSICBIO says "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." He doesn't appear to fit either prong.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I see you're right about the ensemble membership. So I'm standing on GNG. I've struck the first sentence of my !vote (but in the meantime I'd added a second news ref before losing internet access this morning). Yngvadottir (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So--we're going to call someone notable because a few papers (well, publications) reported that (as a band member of Sabaton) lost a bet and walked to a show, one paper interviewed him (as a band member), and one Czech news website lists that he was voted on as a good singer (in his band) in a poll no one has heard of. Drmies (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm advocating for keeping the article because he's been all over the Swedish newspapers, as well as the music sites. I've gone ahead and added the presumably embarrassing episode with the bet, with references including the BBC and NRK. I've also added his hobby of playing competitive pinball, because the press has devoted entire articles to it. I agree, neither of these speaks to the poetry of his lyrics or the majesty of his voice, and his sartorial style is only slightly more encyclopedic, but all three illustrate the many pixels that have been slain on his account, and not merely because he's the band's spokesperson. I considered mining the interviews for his views on war, Sweden in its era as a great power, and patriotism, but I agree, those are better left for the article on the group since he's articulating positions shared with his bandmates, or that they went along with. And I'll happily see the trivia replaced with solid data on his hometown, education, and other life details, or simply removed, once the article is safe. But since we use breadth and depth of coverage as an index of notability, the fact he's received kinda tabloidy coverage means this is what I present to my peers in support of my statement that he's received lots of press and therefore meets GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to his band. Everything is Joakim Brodén of Sabaton, Sabaton's Joakim Brodén. Everything can be covered there. WP:MUSIC Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band.. Going for a walk (one tabloid news event) in relation to the band is not activity independent of the band. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 07:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sabaton (band). Not independently notable; all sources about him are in the context of the band. Wikipedia does not need two articles on these closely related topics. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Yngvadottir. /Julle (talk) 15:08, 22 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Khan[edit]

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

doesn't pass WP:Artist. the subject received some press coverage because of a single event. Saqib (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, a couple of non-notable book awards does not mean they pass the GNG. — Quasar G. 16:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ARTIST the book awards seem to be not-notable and subject has insufficient coverage is reliable sources. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:07, 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. joe decker ^talk 23:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Pribanic[edit]

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

Name comes up only with General Motors law suit. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:ANYBIO. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 06:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the references suggest notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after much consideration: Aside from the GM suit, Pribanic is a run-of-the-mill successful personal-injury plaintiff lawyer in a large metropolitan area; there are at least hundreds of people who fall into that subset of the population, and to the extent there's more local news coverage of them than of the average bear, it's just because they try cases that make for interesting local news stories. The GM suit, though, is arguably a big deal nationally—but, Pribanic appears to have played a relatively minor supporting role, as his case wasn't one of the first "bellwethers" and ultimately didn't go to trial. At a WP:ONEEVENT level, Pribanic doesn't get into the zone of notability in my view. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:17, 22 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. czar 06:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YouPHPTube[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Fails WP:GNG for lack of available independent sources. - Mr X 20:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are providing no significant coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 06:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence at all for notability , and even tho it is free software, the article is clearly promotional . DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 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 by Dlohcierekim (talk) as WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7

Camp Victory ( Millville, Pennsylvania)[edit]

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

The subject has received very little coverage and apparently only in local media. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 20:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 06:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- unambiguous advertising created by a user with no other contributions: Special:Contributions/Acj2002. I'll request a speedy deletion; let's see if this takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaisano Capital Kalibo[edit]

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

No notable shopping centre. Generally centres with such a small land area and number of stores aren't considered notable unless they have exceptional independent sources. This is just another WP:MILL Ajf773 (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:42, 31 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) 21:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 06:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- spam & unsourced original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 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. So Why 19:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nasib Mukhtarov[edit]

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

Non-notable biography, see WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Single contributor, who is no longer active. Only references I could find through search are his social media pages, and ONE mention in an archeological blog. ZarosFlok (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with regret. Just no evidence of impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 06:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. A WP:BEFORE search seems even less generous than the nom indicated! -[30]. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:49, 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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Money Brothers[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. The age-old cycle I ProD'd, an anon deProD'd. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: does that ring any bell? —usernamekiran(talk) 23:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The band has released a music video, and have release a total of 5 songs. they are a legitimate band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.201.69.42 (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find sources, i couldnt. Would you please add some sources in the article? —usernamekiran(talk) 23:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No references and Fails WP:BAND Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Escape The Fate. There are references under their new name Beyond Unbroken (seriously, did people saying "there's no references" read the first sentence of the article and try searching under the new name?), including a substantial article in Alternative Press (magazine)[31] and some shorter notices on other sites. It might still be better to merge, though, as there's not a huge amount of coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 8 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, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

41pounds.org[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. BEFORE only shows other papers running the AP story shown in the article from SFGate, some other passing mentions in a similar vein and little else. Surprisingly my search turned up no Gnews hits on the BBB negative info. Since the organization is apparently defunct, can't see how this situation could improve. John from Idegon (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; the group is now defunct and none of the past coverage suggests notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the Highbeam results and it looks to me like 41pounds.org got a fair amount of coverage in independent sources (at least when the organization was intact).

In terms of WP:ORGDEPTH I think the examples listed in the policy are more trivial than what one sees in the Highbeam results. For example, "the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories,". Well, I think the mention in The Washington Post or the one in the Deseret Morning News are more significant than just a listing in a business directory. So I think it is meeting WP:ORGDEPTH, and also WP:AUD, and WP:ORGIND, so I would say keep (though the downward trajectory of the organization is an added wrinkle).

In terms of WP:ILLCON I haven't seen anything that says that they are being investigated, were indicted, etc.

On a practical note I added a mention of two similar organizations to the article -- Catalog Choice and DMAChoice, so that readers looking for such a service would have alternatives. As far as I know there isn't any issues with either of those. I actually signed up with DMAChoice (only cost $2); however, I haven't really sought to use it to reduce the amount of mail that I get. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went and deleted the wikilink to 41pounds.org in the article on The Nature Conservancy in this edit (that's how I found out about the organization in the first place), and so I talked about why I did that on the talk page.

I took a look at what articles link to 41pounds and made some edits to the article on Advertising mail.

Incoming links being deleted could argue for deletion, but people might still find the article, and I think the information on alternatives could be helpful. Also, maybe 41pounds will be able to turn itself around. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - since we can't find out for sure whether they are defunct or not, the organization is not notable. I looked at an earlier version and come out questioning whether they were even a non-profit. They claimed to donate part of their donations to non-profits (does that make sense?). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability or significance; WP:ADVOCACY. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. This is a mess. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Athenas[edit]

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

Delete Multiple pages.spatms (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now. Should properly be procedurally closed, as no rationale has been given for deletion, but could possibly be linked to the related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Stags and Athenas, for which the early !votes have been for deletion. Nominator also created a similarly malformed nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Stags. @Spatms: For future nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. --Finngall ^talk 02:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Claremont Colleges#Athletics. I believe the rationale is unnecessary duplication of content ("Multiple pages", above). James (^talk/_contribs) 11:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / procedural close, as there is no reason given for deletion. Merging to the athletics section for just one of the multiple colleges would be wrong. However it would not be controversial for anyone to merge/redirect to the main article about the joint sports program of the four related colleges, without any AFD. The supposition that the reason is duplication of content seems false to me because one of the related AFDs is trying to delete the one necessary combo article about the joint sports teams, which would then require complete duplication of all the info into four separate college articles. Keep the one needed main joint article. --doncram 04:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, Claremont Colleges is about the consortium of colleges partially represented by this sports team, not one of the colleges. There are three colleges represented, not four. As Claremont Colleges is the "main joint article", it would be appropriate to redirect this non-notable page there. James (^talk/_contribs) 15:20, 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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. This is a mess. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Stags[edit]

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

Delete Multiple pages.

spatms (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now. Should properly be procedurally closed, as no rationale has been given for deletion, but could possibly be linked to the related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Stags and Athenas, for which the early !votes have been for deletion. Nominator also created a similarly malformed nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Athenas. @Spatms: For future nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. --Finngall ^talk 02:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Claremont Colleges#Athletics. I believe the rationale is unnecessary duplication of content ("Multiple pages", above). James (^talk/_contribs) 11:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / procedural close, as there is no reason given for deletion. However it would not be controversial for anyone to merge/redirect to the main article about the joint sports program of the four related colleges, without any AFD. The supposition that the reason is duplication of content seems false to me because one of the related AFDs is trying to delete the one necessary combo article about the joint sports teams, which would then require complete duplication of all the info into four separate college articles. Keep the one needed main joint article. --doncram 04:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, Claremont Colleges is about the consortium of colleges partially represented by this sports team, not one of the colleges. There are three colleges represented, not four. As Claremont Colleges is the "main joint article", it would be appropriate to redirect this non-notable page there. James (^talk/_contribs) 15:21, 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. czar 06:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Groffman[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a travel writer and blogger, whose only evident claim of notability for either endeavour is that he exists. A writer is not automatically entitled to a standalone article just because his writing got into notable publications -- a person has to be the subject of reliable source coverage about him, not the bylined author of reliable source coverage of other things, to earn an article. But the only two sources here are primary ones, not media coverage about him, so they don't assist in building a case for WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Simply Google query yields no notable results.NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references are way below the level of notability. They are basically connected references. The announcement from a panel show of its participants is not an indepdent source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been significantly improved with independent sources and notability of subject demonstrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepy Sentry (talk • contribs) 15:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article was significantly expanded after the nomination for deletion, which included the addition of several references.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established: most sources seem to be blogs, minor websites, or social media. He merely "participated" in a small NY Times sponsored panel and in writing the travel guides: there's no WP:RS coverage *of* him. - GretLomborg (talk) 03:14, 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.