Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 June	24 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 delete. czar 23:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Rupert[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Currently fails WP:NHOCKEY with only 149 games in the AHL and no awards. (At his current pace of accumulating games in the AHL, he will not have presumed notability until 2018 or 2019 so WP:TOOSOON). Yosemiter (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence this minor-league journeyman of no particular accomplishments meets the GNG. Ravenswing 22:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY. Have not seen any notable content in searches. Alaney2k (talk) 14:56, 26 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 National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli. Some secondary sources to potentially merge, but if nothing useful, feel free to just redirect. czar 23:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DoMS NIT Trichy[edit]

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

Individual department. In a good university, but no evidence of any separate notability. Essentially the criterion for a separate article for a department is world-faous, and this is nowhere near. Even if it were to be considered notable, it should still be treated within the main article, according to WPM. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability in itself. Alternatively, Merge with National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli, --Muhandes (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to main.Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seeking more precise consensus on how to deal with this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli as a department of an NIT. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:52, 29 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 23:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Randow[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Yes he played on multiple albums, but no one is writing about the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ has played in multiple notable bands for WP:MUSICBIO, the German sources seem sufficient for WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- MUSICBIO states that the subjects "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria". Meanwhile the German sources don't event meet RS! We have one that lists the subject as a drummer (DB entry) and others that list albums and mention the subject played on them. I saw when you removed the PROD for these very reasons and after reviewing, I took this to AfD. Am I missing the actual German-language sources that meet RS? Please link them here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - Striking keep vote as not finding much - only results such as here and here Atlantic306 (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete lack of significant, in depth coverage sufficient to meet GNG. Brief mentions at best. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I translated some of the few DE sources, not enough to keep. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lock-N-Stitch[edit]

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

References are either to a patent or to a simple listing, online I did find this but that alone doesn't seem to make this qualify. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG and I also removed a lot of unnecessary material from the article. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 00:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Florida State Seminoles men's golfers[edit]

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

Unsourced and fails WP:LISTN notability. Could possibly be merged to Florida State Seminoles men's golf or simply left as Category:Florida State Seminoles men's golfers - Mr X 22:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTPURP as an index of articles, and as a complement to Category:Florida State Seminoles men's golfers. "Unsourced" is irrelevant, unless the nom is claiming that membership in this list is somehow false or unverifiable, in which case they wouldn't be fine with merging or with leaving the category intact, as that is the exact same classification just in a different format. Obviously notable as a group or Florida State Seminoles men's golf shouldn't exist, even if we assumed satisfying LISTN was required here (it isn't). Also, if merger is acceptable (and I have no objection to merging to Florida State Seminoles men's golf, size-wise it could fit there), then deletion is off the table (and should have been attempted first) per WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLT, merge would work too since the two articles are quite short. ansh 666 01:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Florida State Seminoles men's golfers. No prejudice against merging to Florida State Seminoles men's golf. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. by User:Anthony Bradbury per WP:G5; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waffen77 (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salomon Thiombiano[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability requirements due to lack of reliable sources which can be used to verify notability. I evaluated every source used for the article at Talk:Salomon Thiombiano and none of them can be used for verifying notability. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Article was created by a paid sock of Waffen77. —Guan aco 06:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenio Minvielle Lagos[edit]

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

Promotional, fails GNG. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Promotional and reads like a resume (see WP:NOTRESUME). Sources are not strong enough. I tried Googling this guy to research his notably and found nothing that could help. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 22:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant puff-piece on an unremarkable businessman. – Joe (talk) 16:46, 28 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 Gobots. From the brief discussion here it is unclear if Gobots is the best target article. If there is a more suitable target, feel free to merge the content there instead. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin 12:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Path Finder (Transformers)[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

' "Merge" 'with artice on Gobots or that on The Transformers.Vorbee (talk) 10:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if anyone wants to keep the material, otherwise delete. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:25, 24 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 Transformers (toy line). (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 13:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Changer[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Transformers: Generation 1#1984 and 1985. BOZ (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm seeing little worth merging, but if someone is keen to do the honours, I suppose I don't object. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge or Redirect to Transformers (toy line). The specific type of toy is notable within the broader toyline. Sources like this one can be added to emphasis the difference from the "standard" transforming toys. The list of characters falling under the description can be jettisoned. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:29, 26 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hamza Firdous[edit]

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

fails to meet WP:Artist. Saqib (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - While WP:GNG is perhaps met (though some coverage seems relatively trivial), WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR do not seem to be demonstrated. The latter in particular generally expects actors to have played "significant roles in multiple notable [works]". While the proposed TV role may prove otherwise, the roles to date do not seem especially significant (small theatre role with the Ranelagh Players? uncredited bit-part in Ripper Street?) and works to date do not seem to be particularly notable (web-series? limited release short film?). If the article is kept, then it would likely need significant improvement in referencing. Could well be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Guliolopez (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources cited are not reliable enough to be used on WP. --Saqib (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 27 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 03:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Miss North East[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Quick search, seems not notable - Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. No evidence of notability whatsoever. Ajf773 (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Not notable, failed to meet WP:GNG.--Richie Campbell (talk) 17:08, 26 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward P. Brynn[edit]

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

No indication of notability, not a single secondary source. Nothing found on Google News, nothing useful on Google Books. ScrapIronIV de-prodded the article claiming automatic notability by virtue of WP:NPOL #1, but there are two problems with that. Firstly, a career diplomat is not a politician, and secondly, I don't think "ambassador" is what's meant by "international office" - that would be "UN Secretary General" or the like. Huon (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As above, quick search, seems not notable.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would support an SNG that makes ambassadors notable but the community disagreed, so ambassadors are not notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete no inherent notability of ambassadors. And only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. His entry at the State Department doesn't suggest that he did anything but occupy two chairs.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable bio of someone doing their jobs. A government functionary. Kierzek (talk) 15:52, 26 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. Based on the expansion the article has undergone during the AFD, consensus here is to keep. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin 12:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Syracuse, Sicily[edit]

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

not notable enough, largely useless as it is covered in Syracuse,_Sicily#History_of_Syracuse The Verified Cactus 100% 20:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with - Syracuse,_Sicily#History_of_Syracuse Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything useful here. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More content added recently, including info translated from the Italian version of the timeline. Additional content forthcoming shortly. -- M2545 (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More content added here -- M2545 (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I recently found out that the article is part of a series of timelines for Italian cities, rather than a standalone kind of thing. I'm not sure which side I'm on now, as I feel that it could be improved to a quality similar to Timeline_of_the_city_of_Rome. The Verified Cactus 100% 15:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has grown to a substantial length, and timelines are valid formats for articles. If a standalone article on the history of Syracuse existed, merge might be a possibility, but merging to Syracuse is inappropriate because of the length of both articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:39, 26 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Safe City[edit]

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

Contested PROD. WP:NEO from some... "group"... basically a blog. Exceedingly WP:FRINGE. Apparently they believe that electromagnetic fields cause disease. So yeah, we're all screwed, and "in less than 1000 days by [their] calculations" no less.

The title is so exceedingly generic so as to make it virtually impossible to look for sources, but even if it wasn't I wouldn't expect to find any anyway. TimothyJosephWood 20:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seconded. The Verified Cactus 100% 20:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I may have accidentally contested the PROD here, thinking I could get it through A7. But, it seems that would not happen. Anyways, delete as an obvious hoax. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 20:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nah RB. The author removed it. TimothyJosephWood 20:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google has almost never heard of this term being used in this way. - Richard Cavell (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your chain and reasoning. Yes, it's an opinion piece, but it creates the new term Safe City. Marketing forces also created the term "Smart City" lol. This type of response is typical among the biophysics community and the people that have not learned the science of the Electromagnetic Spectrum and how it influences health. Does sunlight convert cholesterol to vitamin D via the EM Spectrum. You bet it does. You'll find within a few months (maybe a year tops) you'll be adding it back again. Mark this post for later as the coining of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robyninthehode (talk • contribs) 17:18, June 23, 2017 (UTC)

"This type of response is typical among the biophysics community" Yet you don't have any sources in the article backing up any usage (let alone large-scale) of the term in the biophysics community. At the end of the day, it doesn't qualify as an article, regardless of your claims or whether or not it will become a widespread term in the future. The Verified Cactus 100% 19:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absolute tosh. Surely this could be speedily deleted as a hoax? There is nothing to gainsay that evaluation. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No V, WP:G3 only applies to "pages that are intended to misinform". It doesn't cover WP:FRINGE theories. TimothyJosephWood 21:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sourced content. Reads like a high school essay. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Soares de Souza[edit]

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

I'm not convinced that this article passes WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E, as the article subject is covered in the sources "only in the context of a single event", also, she "is likely to remain, a low-profile individual", and the murders are "not significant" (I believe). Seagull123 Φ 19:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Maybe G12. It's pretty close paraphrasing of this, and I just nominated literally every other article this user has created for G12, because literally all of them were stubs copied verbatim from online. TimothyJosephWood 19:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UFO2[edit]

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

The article does not appear to meet WP:NALBUM. Dolotta (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I see now what is happening now. I just created the page because I have all info handy, but I'm also the artist, and that's a conflict of interest. No worries. Joelkanning

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. --Hirsutism (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable --Jennica✿ / ^talk 01:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable & clearly promotional. I'd argue that the Joel Kanning, Ubiquitous Frequency Oscillation (UFO), and Nobis (album) articles should also all be deleted, as Kanning himself doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG and neither do any of his self released albums. (Not to mention all those pages being created at the same time by a single use account, so likely WP:PROMO.) JamesG5 (talk) 06:59, 25 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Martin (soldier)[edit]

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

John Martin was an NCO in E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) in World War II; during his military service he did not achieve rank or receive awards sufficient to meet soldier. He was discharged early because of a trick knee. After the War, he eventually became a millionaire home builder but did not achieve general notability or significant coverage. The character based on Martin appeared in eight of the ten episodes of the HBO miniseries, but the most significant act represented was actually performed by another NCO. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of USA-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Should be mentioned in the Band of Brothers article, but otherwise not notable for stand alone article. WP:Memorial applies. Kierzek (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Band of Brothers article Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a member of Easy Company, getting mentioned in at least two reputable secondary sources, and being sufficiently well-known to be adapted as a character for Band of Brothers are all things that seem to indicate that he is notable. Inclusion of this article is maybe not essential to Wikipedia, but there is definitely room to add references, maybe even a photograph, to enhance its quality. That being said, if it gets deleted I won't be heartbroken to see it go. RexSueciae (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable NCO. Name can be optionally redirected to Band of Brothers at editorial discretion. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Getting mentioned in at least two reputable secondary sources hardly constitutes "significant coverage". Basically, notability is not inherited, in this case Band of Brothers does not grant notability to those portrayed, they have to earn it on their own. --Bejnar (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is not "well known enough to be adapted", with this type of argument we would create articles on most of the historically real characters in the film Hacksaw Ridge at least some of the people who were direct commanders over Desmond Doss. We do not have articles on anyone there except Desmond Doss, why? Because appearing in a film does not overcome the fact that everyone else involved lacks notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted under CSD#G5 per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/St. claires fire Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia's 31st House of Delegates district[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE listing of recent elections statistics from a U.S. state's House of Delegates district. The article has no clear inclusion criteria or meaningful prose, nor is there evidence of notability. - Mr X 18:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are substantially similar:[reply]

Comment Wikipedia isn't really known for having prose-heavy constituency articles. Look at, say, California's 11th State Senate district. It has two sentences of prose and the rest is infoboxes, tables, navboxes, and categories. Mister Ernest Thayer (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but it's not clear what these article are about. If they are about the districts, then they should include information about the geographic boundaries, redistricting, constituency, demographics, and possibly a summary of voting stats over a large period of time. These articles seem to be solely about election stats of the past few years, in which case they should be titled 2016-2107 election statistics for Virginia's NNrd House of Delegates district. They would also need to have sources that specifically discuss each district's elections for that specific time frame. With the current titles, they should look more like this: Virginia's 32nd House of Delegates district.- Mr X 22:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. It's accepted that constituencies for second tier jurisdictions are notable, which is why we have full sets of articles on such constituencies from second tier jurisdictions all around the world, e.g. Scotland, Ontario, New South Wales, Punjab etc etc. These need more work, but they're a reasonable starting point. Having said, that Mister Ernest Thayer's attitude is somewhat disappointing. Number 57 21:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't necessarily know where to find all the sources of information that would be needed to finish the articles. Also, I don't know how to create maps. Mister Ernest Thayer (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Additional information should be added, bt this is a suitable basis. some information is best expressed in list or table format, even in an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per precedent and coverage on these districts. Articles do need work though.--Mojo Hand (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as they are clearly notable per precedent. AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment there has been a further development. They're to be deleted per G5.Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:16, 29 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 22:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Swan Coffee House[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG (and marked as such since Nov. 2014). No references at all. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-@MatthewVanitas:--Can you please clarify as to why you accepted the submission? I too seem to find no WP:RS.Thanks!Winged Blades^Godric 10:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not MatthewVanitas, obviously, but at the time of submission there were a couple of local community newspaper sources present in the article. Not enough that it should have actually been accepted, by far, but AFC was a pretty new endeavour in 2014 and didn't really have the core group of reviewers or the exacting standards of sourcing that it has today. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references. The coffee house was open, off and on, for 15 years and has now been closed for over 40. Perhaps it can be merged into Cedric Smith (actor) or Perth County Conspiracy, but it would likely be a one sentence merge. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can see the potential outline of a notability claim here, if we could lean in harder on its status as a music venue, but I can't find the reliable sources needed to support that — even on a ProQuest search, I can find just one article that's about the coffeehouse rather than just namechecking its existence in coverage of something or someone else. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can do better than this, but what's present here as of today simply isn't enough in and of itself. A small amount of information about it could be included in either Cedric Smith's BLP or Perth County Conspiracy, but redirecting this title to either of those two places would create an WP:XY problem. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 28 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle H. Mabson[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. - TheMagnificentist 18:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to identify any points of significant coverage and of WP:NMUSIC. I'm surprised this article has been around this long.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)bwf[reply]
Delete before I lose the will to live. A search turned up the usual social network sites, but precisely ZERO independent coverage. Fails WP:NBIO.

"His favorite color is turquoise, as he is an avid collector of Southwestern jewelry. During many of his performances, you can see him wearing any number of rings from his collection. During a performance opening up for Bruno Mars in 2015, he once worn 28 rings on his right hand alone." Oh OK, right, but {{cn}}. Narky Blert (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Serra Project[edit]

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

Was dePRODed by an IP user without addressing the issues. The PROD was endorsed by a second experienced user. Concern was: Most of the cited sources are dead links, or not directly about the subject, but that besides, the article does little to to demonstrate that the organisation is significant or important, and hence fails WP:ORG, and is promotional. Notabillity is not inherited from celebrity collaborators or supporters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the PROD endorser per the PROD rationale. This firm doesn't have the depth of coverage we expect under WP:ORG. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable organization, with trivial references and extensive name-dropping, by declared promotional editor. DGG ( talk ) 14:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per aboveLight2021 (talk) 19:30, 29 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 09:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hevilift[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Only coverage I can find is pretty WP:MILL. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:NCORP. Ajf773 (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant advert. 2 of the 3 sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete promotional! Light2021 (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What aspect of this page is promotional? It does not show any commercial contact information or provide any glowing reference. Aprilleigh1234 (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Aprilleigh1234[reply]

Creation of page in Wikipedia itself for positioning online and having link is promotional if its purpose is nothing encyclopedic, helong search engine results, Wikipedia provides strongest link building and credibility. it is being misused. Light2021 (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of any notability. Another air charter company. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly salt, fails notability guidelines as all mentions in sources are trivial. — Quasar G. 23:19, 26 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. Sandstein 22:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii (desktop environment)[edit]

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

Non-notable desktop environment tagged since February 2014. This article was previous deleted via WP:PROD in July 2013. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There are sources to prove that the environment existed, but several of them might not be reliable enough to establish WP:GNG. A check for WP:RS would be needed. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 14:33, 26 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 21:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nagybörzsöny ‘Warlock’ incident[edit]

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

The article is hoax, or at least fiction, see details at talkpage. Before nomination, I asked User:TheValeyard to clarify the status of the article. This incident does not appear in Hungarian historiography. Norden1990 (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is fiction, pure and simple, taken from a novel. Nobody heard of the event in Hungary, no history books mention it, so it can't be sourced. --Pagony (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some sources can be identified. Odd. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HOAX - Delete - The one source cited is a publisher's webpage for a novel, possibly a very recent one. Fictional works are not historical sources. I suspect the whole thing is trying to advertise the book in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given the above commentary. Aoba47 (talk) 01:06, 28 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 21:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshadweep Class[edit]

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

Probable hoax. No evidence that this is an Indian Navy ship or a hospital ship. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

See Talk:Lakshadweep Class#Does this exist? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Lakshadweep Class. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are redirects to this article:

Delete all per earlier discussions, and failing WP:V. Mjroots (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Insufficient references to establish notability, much less whether it is a naval vessel. User:HopsonRoad 22:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see continuing discussion at Talk:Lakshadweep Class#Reply. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:35, 25 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. Note that the table was pasted into Talk:2016–17 Premier League#Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2017 but by the original creator, so the original article isn't required for attribution. czar 21:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Premier League attendances[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTSTATS. Apparently only one primary source exists to contribute to WP:LISTN. This content serves no enduring encyclopedic purpose. - Mr X 15:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the category on the list to Category:Football club attendances, which does contain similar lists. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - fails WP:LISTN; some consensus exists that these sorts of lists are not notable; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports teams Spiderone 20:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the statistics and coverage of the league attendance will already be covered in the main season article as well as the individual club season articles, which makes trivial statistical articles such as this rather unneeded. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 09:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems to me that if this fails NOTSTATS (it probably does), a look should be had at the articles in these categories: Category:Football club attendances & Category:Association football records and statistics Equineducklings (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Season Statistics section of 2016-17 Premier League, as of now this topic is not covered in that article XyzSpaniel Talk Page 16:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTSTATS. Fenix down (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This really needs to be deleted per WP:NOTSTATS. Qed237 (talk) 10:56, 29 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 procedural close. Raise at Wikipedia:Redirects for Discussion if necessary. czar 21:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuelan regional elections, 2016[edit]

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

The election was originally scheduled for 2016, but it was postponed to December 2017. As a result, no such election took place in 2016, making the redirect's title wrong. Ost000101 (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue This a redirect, not an article. And I'd keep it as a possible search term. Think years from now when someone is thinking along the lines of "was that regional election held in 2016, or 2017?" Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Article was initially created since elections were to be held in 2016. Thanks for finding this since I forgot about it!--ZiaLater (talk) 08:08, 24 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 21:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yanic Simard[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, references are all trivial, providing no indication of lasting notability. Flagrant WP:POV and WP:PEACOCK issues, showing that this article is promotional, fails WP:NOTPROMOTION. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 15:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 15:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All new addtiions on this debated wikipedia article are based on media status and facts gathered by editor. The content is not WP:PEACOCK or WP:POV it is on the contrary based on an indepth research online from various sources. I do not agree with this article for deletion. Mr. Yanic Simard is a Canadian business entrepreneur and well known television and media personality and I decided to update the missing information on his wikipedia page. This is NOT self proclaimed or intended to promote anything, I am just an independant source trying to be more accurate on the subject. Following comments and feedback from editors and administrators I have adjusted my additions to this article. I hope my fellow editors find it acceptable. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostintranslation18 (talk • contribs) 20:54, June 23, 2017 (UTC)
Speedy delete - per WP:G11. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 20:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is advertorially, not encyclopedically, written, and is based almost entirely on primary sources (e.g. his "our contributors" profiles on the websites of publications he contributed to) rather than reliable ones — the only one which represents media coverage about him is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself, which is still not a type of source that can be used to support notability. Our inclusion rules do not grant businesspeople or television personalities an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist; they must be reliably sourceable as passing a specific notability criterion, but nothing present here passes either part of that equation. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 28 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) Winged Blades^Godric 13:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AIL Storm[edit]

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

Duplication of Jeep J8 with some commercial (and nationalistic) propaganda added along with some good content. Nuke, or merge to J8. Anmccaff (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 15:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 15:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Delete, along to lines as suggested by nom. Covered in the Jeep J8 article as noted above and RS cited NPOV information can be added thereto. WP:CFORK applies. I realize that this article passed GA at some point. I don't know why all was not just included in the Jeep 8 article, which is not lengthy. Kierzek (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC) Ok, Hawkeye7, convinced me, change to Keep. Kierzek (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The rationale provided is wrong. The J8 is actually based on the sufa\storm series, and is actually just storm3, without storm1 and storm2 - produced and used for more than 20 years before the J8. If at all the merge target should be reversed. J8 was concieved to export the Storm3 to additional markets. The Sufa\Storm itself is based on various (per version) Wranglers, but is highly modified, armored and armed for military missions. Both articles could use toning down of PROMO, but they aren't horrible.Icewhiz (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As explained by Icewhiz, the AIL Storm is NOT a duplication of Jeep J8, and was available decades earlier. The J8 is merely the equivalent of Storm Mark III. -- IsaacSt (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no -although I agree that merging the j-8 in is also a valid option. Neither of these are fundamentally based on AIL designs; they are militarized Jeep Wranglers, and re-militarized CJs with some AIL bells and whistles added. Very different, say, from the AIL continuation of the Dodge Power Wagon, where, toward the end of production, there were substantial differences between the ancestor and the progeny, and not just in superficial appearance. The AIL Jeep stuff, on the other hand, has constantly drawn from ongoing Jeep evolution. Anmccaff (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By this rationale we should merge Boeing P-8 Poseidon into the 737, as well as countless other military aircraft variants (same airframe and engines, military role achieved with system integration). The Sufa is based on the Wrangler (all be it not a standard one, e.g. mixing chasis and engine generations) - but adds armor (in some versions alot of armor), weapons, communications and other military adaptations. The resulting military veihcle is not equivelant to the commercial base type.Icewhiz (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Civilian AIL models have been sold or proposed, which often included none of the militarized bells-n-whistles; are you suggesting they are not the same vehicle?

Also, hardened variants of most military vehicles seem to be treated with the parent. Most armored variants of the HMMWV are covered with it. Armed and unarmed versions of M151s and M35s are treated as a single subject, as is hardened vs stock. Why should this be an exception? Anmccaff (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wrangler is a civilian veihcle to begin with, not military. The comparison to military (and civilianized versions of) M151 and HMMWV is not in place. While using the engine and chasis (with modifications) everything on top of the chasis is different here. The civilian Sufa (which has not been sold in great numbers if at all as new, though used military units have been put up for sale, I think) is quite a different beast than the Wrangler. The wrangler is used here as a plarform, just as List of Volkswagen Group platforms, and we keep each civilian variant article based on the same platform, even if the differences is mainly finishings. In the case of a militarized veihcle the differences are much much greater. The car body is totally different. The finshings inside are different. The whole thing is much more rugged, armor, weapon mounts, etc.Icewhiz (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Dodge Power Wagon, the International Scout, the Chevrolet Suburban and the Landrover all began as civilian vehicles; several made the transition to military almost seamlessly.

A glance at the Storm is enough to demolish the claim that The car body is totally different. It's a knockdown kit; in some versions all parts interchange. Anmccaff (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All sources I've looked at - say this is beyond a knock down kit (at least for Storm1 and Storm2 which were more widely produced). The military versions of Chevrolet Suburban have their own article Commercial Utility Cargo Vehicle - despite being essentially the same except for a paint job and some fittings. Same for multiple Land Rovers - e.g. Land Rover 101 Forward Control, Land Rover 1/2 ton Lightweight, Land Rover Wolf, Snatch Land Rover, Land Rover Perentie - some of which are not much more than a paint job and some fittings on a civilian model - done by Land Rover itself. The Sufa - is a mix and match of different Wrangler bits - Sufa1 was a mix of a CJ-6/CJ-8 wheelbase with Jeep Wrangler YJ engine and other bits. The body itself (and internal fittings - very robust and very-very basic and austere) is locally manufactured and has many variants - you can see some variants here - [1]. The up-armored versions are completely different beasts - adding significant armor weight and different suspension.Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{od}The military versions of Chevrolet Suburban have their own article Commercial Utility Cargo Vehicle Umm, no, that's a Chevy Blazer, roughly, and I'd be quite happy to entertain the idea of putting most of the material in the Blazer article. The conflation of 880 series with CUCVs proper is a problem as it is.

despite being essentially the same except for a paint job and some fittings...i.e., despite being quite similar to the overwhelming bulk of Storms, as... your cite rather clearly suggests. Aside from the rather unfortunately labeled Sufashi’t, these are either pure Jeep, or jeep with a modified nose. The differences in suspension are all well within what a fleet customer could feasibly request, semi-stock.

Essentially, your argument seems to boil down to "other junk exists". No, painting something a different, matte, color doesn't make something different enough to justify its own article...although claiming that a cab-over forward control truck

is somehow the same as a standard Landrover (give or take)

simply because of the shared name seems a little questionable. Anmccaff (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given rationale above. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Icewhiz, there's nothing wrong with creating a separate article on a variant. This is sanctioned by WP:SPLIT, a policy, so WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply here. I think the record for an item of military hardware is held by DC-3, where there is even a List of Douglas DC-3 family variants that lists the separate articles on variants. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with a good many things, but that isn't to say they are the best idea, either. So far, I've seen no argument here why the overwhelming bulk of these vehicles shouldn't be treated as what they are: very minor variants of CJs and Wranglers. Anmccaff (talk) 16:50, 30 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. None of the arguments to keep provided any evidence (i.e. WP:RS) to establish that this player meets WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan Janković[edit]

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

The previous AfD appears to have been kept based off of Assertion of notability votes, but did not actually supply any references or sources that would in fact pass WP:GNG. The assertion was that since the subject played on a national team, he is therefore notable, even though the sport specific guideline, WP:NHOCKEY (which itself is still subject to GNG even if a player meets one of the criteria) specifically calls out only the top division national teams to have presumed notability. The player only played in the third tier of the IIHF championship, not for the world championship, just to earn promotion (which they earned in 2008–09, but only up to the second tier and he did not even play at that tournament). He has also not played in a league that has presumed notability as researched and documented in the league assessment for presumed player notability, an essay written to document leagues that have been known to be covered well enough in media that GNG-relevant sources should be able to be found. (It only means that if the league is not listed there, then we have no presumptions of the notability of a player. Therefore, it must be proven to consistently meet GNG before being added. Often taking subjects to AfD is the first step finding the sources.)

Several sources were added during the course of the previous Afd: a basic player info page, an article that mentions him once, routine coverage of a championship game where it was mentioned he played well (and is a primary source), more routine coverage of a game where he scored an assist, an article that lists him as a member of the team, more routine coverage, and game recap. His most significant is likely an interview with him when he was a coach, but the source does not appear to be independent. Yosemiter (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, said far better than I could have (or attempted to). Previous discussion's close seems to be the result of 'yays' versus 'nays' rather than a reflection of substance. No sources were brought to light that would satisfy GNG but it was argued that NHOCKEY was english biased and that an editor who proclaimed to not know about hockey felt that the subject satisfied the "spirit of NHOCKEY". Looking through the archive of AFD's it is clear that the spirit of NHOCKEY does not support the inclusion of players like this. It is hard to do serbian searches, however I did try, as stated in the previous discussion, and came up with only routine coverage. Serbia has been frequently in danger of not being able to fulfill minimum requirements for IIHF participation, so playing in their only league of four teams or for their national team is not anywhere near being in a top league, or playing in the world Championship.18abruce (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The last Afd closed two days ago on 21 June 2017. The WP:NHOCKEY guideline seems to be overly restrictive with respect to Serbian leagues. --Bejnar (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bejnar: Absolutely not, if you follow the Serbian league (singular) you would know they are in constant difficulty of actually surviving. During the subjects playing time the league was propped up by junior or amateur teams more than once to ensure they would be allowed to ice a national team at all. If you try to find stories on the league, what is notable is its attempts to survive, not its players. I think WP:NHOCKEY is overly restrictive to German and Swiss leagues, but to the serbian league, no. Provide sources that satisfy GNG and it helps change minds though.18abruce (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: If you think he can pass GNG, then please provide some sources that prove it. I have listed the ones found and were added already and exactly why they are not significant, independent, secondary sources. This has nothing to do with North American bias (which exists mainly because it gets more heavily covered in NA than in most of the world) but entirely because of the coverage of where this player has played. Even if he was the best player in the Southern Professional Hockey League in the United States, he still would not likely to be any more notable than the best player in Egypt because neither player would receive significant coverage. And if I had found the discussion two days ago before it closed, I would have said the same thing. I believe the closer probably should have actually read the discussion instead of tallying the votes, especially since one the of the votes was from what appears to be a single purpose account. Yosemiter (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wow, this one slipped through the cracks, and I agree that the previous close was a depressing case of headcount vs policy. That being said, allow me to address Bejnar's comments here and on the previous AfD, since he makes some classic erroneous assumptions about NHOCKEY. First off, neither NHOCKEY, nor any other NSPORTS criteria, nor indeed any notability criteria in force in Wikipedia, is under any onus to pay homage to anything Serbian. It (and they) are, instead, designed with only one principle in mind: to gauge whether any subject who meets it can pass the GNG. Hockey is a lightly-regarded sport in Serbia (compared to basketball or soccer) and receives very little coverage there, done deal, period.
Secondly, NHOCKEY doesn't define "top" league, and never has, as "the highest league in each and every country or dependency." That strange and erroneous notion would inevitably lead to playing in some beer league in Peru being declared just as notable and noteworthy as playing in the NHL.
Thirdly, NHOCKEY doesn't automatically enshrine, and never has, playing for a "national team" as notable or noteworthy.
Finally, IMHO, judging the "spirit" of NHOCKEY (or indeed of any notability criteria) seems to be code for "interpreting it to suit my preconceptions." I would rather continue to judge the text of the guideline. In doing so, the subject here must stand and fall on the GNG, and he fails it, receiving only casual mentions (debarred as counting towards notability) or routine sports coverage of the sort explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 08:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Ravendrop 19:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of articles shows he played top level in serbia, played for national team...notable enough! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.250.35.162 (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello single purpose IP, please provide sources for your assertion of notability in order to pass WP:GNG. Simply playing a low-level league is not enough. (Top level league in a nation/country has never been a criterion of NHOCKEY as that would leave open the possibility of the best players in India the same notability as the best players in the NHL which is clearly not true.) Yosemiter (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked, and this IP comes from Serbia, according to that website. The other tool may say the same country. --George Ho (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ice hockey players are presumed notable if they 1.Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league; 2.Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.250.35.162 (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:NHOCKEY/LA addresses both 1 and 2 in the top section. #2 can be confusing without writing an essay, but its intent is for pre-NHL existing leagues and "Amateur" leagues of the Eastern Bloc and the USSR where they were amateur only by definition, but definitely not in coverage or skill. The Serbian Hockey League is definitely not "the highest level of competition extant" (not "in a country"), as there is nothing stopping a Serbian from playing in the KHL/SHL/NHL level. (Again, this doesn't matter anyways, NHOCKEY is still subject to GNG. You have not provided any GNG-worthy sources and that is the only guideline here that matters.) Yosemiter (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He is certainly a good primary source about ice hockey in Serbia. However, despite my lack of understanding the language, he is not notable to all readers. The sources used in References section ([2][3][4][5][6][7][8]) do not indicate important to his field (implying failure to meet NHOCKEY) and to most publications (GNG). This one doesn't mention this guy, especially as Google includes this as part of search results. This one mentions a different person named Bodgan Jankovic (or Bodgana Jankovic), the director; so do this one, that one and that one. I don't know how the previous AfD was closed as "kept", but the ice hockey player still doesn't pass the mark. Maybe someday, someone will create an article about the director... someday. --George Ho (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did an interview with this fella few year ago when he played in Romania, he was a nt member back then, standards says player have played more than 200 games...sure did — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurohockisupreme (talk • contribs) 18:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eurohockisupreme: Hello single purpose account, please read WP:NHOCKEY and the accompanying list of leagues known to have met GNG, then please provide sources for your assertion of notability for the subject in order to pass WP:GNG. Simply playing a low-level national team is not enough. Only playing for a top level senior team for The World Championship, not merely for promotion, is known to be notable. Otherwise it is equivalent to saying the Israeli national team is equivalent to the Finnish national team, which is clearly not true. 200 games is not equivalent in coverage across all leagues, hence the use of the League Assessment. Yosemiter (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And he has not even played 200 pro games. Not that it even matters according to NHOCKEY, but the voter is not attempting to read the guidelines or even get the biographical details correct.18abruce (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet either the General notability guidelines or the hockey notability guidelines. If people think the hockey guidelines are too restrictive, they can seek to get them changed. Until them, we follow them, and we delete this article unless it can be shown to meet the general notability guidelines, which no one has even argued it does. None of the keep voters have argued there are reliable indepth sources on the subject, they just argue we should ignore this lack of sources for sports people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 29 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 Sufficient notability established to pass WP:NGEO. More work needs to be done to expand the article, but potential sources (see Google search) do not seem to be lacking. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #1. Hammersoft (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Gargash[edit]

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

De-PROD'd without reason, the sources I could find were mere mentions, nothing significant to make WP:GNG. WP:GEOLAND requires that the "number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article" beyond mere statistics. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is the location of the Iranian National Observatory, according to [9]. MB 22:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep as we have always considered geographic locations as notable as we would for any other places, there's no serious basis for deletion as any debatable concerns can easily be improved; if sourcing is a serious issue, we dig deeper including considering the highly likely chance of unavailable online sources. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No reason required for deprod. Mountains (named natural features) are generally notable and there doesn't seem to be a verification issue here. ~Kvng (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND. Andrew D. (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: How do you figure? Chris Troutman (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. needs better sourcing, but none the less notable and verified. DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 27 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. obvious spam posted by the company Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phaidon International[edit]

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

Conflict-of-Interest with the author. Trivial details inclined towards self-publicity. Anand.abhishek73 (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be related to the notable publisher Phaidon Press. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:52, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ulbe Bergsma[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO without significant secondary coverage. Blackguard 05:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 13:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Agree, not quite notable enough at this point. ShoesssS ^Talk
Delete. Mr. Bergsma is 19 year old successful online entrepreneur? Creation of an SPA? No claim to notability? Huh. Never seen that before. --Lockley (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infoanarchism[edit]

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

This neologism has no wider use outside of the title of the Time article whence it came. There isn't a school or followers of "infoanarchism". It isn't used at Ian Clarke (computer scientist)—the subject of the Time article—or any closely related concept: crypto-anarchism, free culture, etc. Even if the term was used in any cursory form outside this Wikipedia entry, we don't have a more established encyclopedia topic for "people opposed to intellectual property and censorship" to make for a decent redirect retarget (the criticism would just be covered in the parent article), hence the rationale for outright deletion. czar 04:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar 04:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar 04:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable neologism from the year 2000 with absolutely no staying power. --Lockley (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails GNG. Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 13:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Kudos to the original author. Well written, however unsource able. The only mention is the one Time article and here. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:07, 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 21:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Fitzpatrick[edit]

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

Promotional article, subject does not appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR - works are self-published, award nominations do not seem to be notable Melcous (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG. Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 13:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very far from being notable. She has written for Aurealis and self-published a novel, but has not received critical attention. Her webpage has a list of reviews[10] none of which are from obviously reliable sources. Google shows nothing in the way of reviews. (Probably owing to the size of the Australian SF scene it would be hard for her to get reviewed in a publication she does not have some kind of a link with, but even allowing for that, she doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:23, 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 speedy delete. by User:Fuhghettaboutit per WP:G12 (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All Syllabus[edit]

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

Article about a website that seems to fail WP:WEBCRIT. The sources cited in the article are questionable and other independent source are not available. - Mr X 13:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Written like an ad, no reliable sources that I can find for this, as a proper noun. I might have even tried speedily deleting it as unambiguous advertising but the nominator is right to bring it here, I'm sure. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio of a site on the blacklist which dates to May while this is only recently here. SO tagged StarM 23:53, 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 merge to Handley Page Halifax. czar 21:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax 57 Rescue[edit]

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

Fails the WP:CORPDEPTH test for organizations. Shirt58 (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect – This organization would work well within the Handley Page Halifax page. Just a thought. ShoesssS ^Talk
Merge/Redirect - relevant content should be transferred to the Halifax page as suggested above. Redirect the name. Otherwise, article fails WP:Corp. Kierzek (talk) 13:48, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Harrison (inventor)[edit]

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

Typical spam.Promotional.Fails WP:GNG. Winged Blades^Godric 11:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looks like I A7d this in January. This may be borderline, and might be saved if it gets some work. I'm not sure. It is overall kindof spammy, and it maybe crosses conceptual lines as far as notability goes. So, for example, he doesn't really fall under NPROF, but that doesn't mean that patents aren't something that contribute to notability, even if they may not get wide coverage in the media, and even if they themselves wouldn't be sufficient alone to establish notability without... something else.

Whether "something else" is out there is a little hard to tell. It's a pretty common name. I did find this from The Telegraph. I don't know that anyone is going to question the reliability of the source, and it's pretty much exactly the kind of in-depth coverage we're looking for. It's a heckuva lot better than the other Telegraph article currently cited. If there's more, I could probably be pretty easily swayed toward a keep, with an admitted recommendation for a near total rewrite for tone. TimothyJosephWood 12:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient notability for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 25 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Seiden[edit]

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

Previously deleted (first creation was by a WP:SPA whose username was Robseiden, indicating WP:COI). Then recreated by new WP:SPA, LouSuss, who created this and seemingly an article (speedily deleted) on one of the companies listed in this article as connected to Seiden. Appears to be promotional and to not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Probably could have gone with “Speedy” as it is a recreation of a deleted page. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I probably should have. I chose to go for prod, which was removed by Solomon7968 without a reason being given. Solomon7968, you may want to comment further here? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:35, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wahhabism Ibadi Movement[edit]

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

WP:POVFORK of Wahabism, Ibadi and Abd al-Wahhab ibn Rustam. Unsourced soapboxing. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I left an email message for the article creator.
While I agree the article does have problems, I ~~am not convinced i~~t is not a fork.
The first article says that movement is founded by a guy named Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.
The second article says that movement is founded by a guy named Abd al-Wahhab ibn Rustam.
The first article says that movement was founded in Saudi Arabia.
The second article says that movement was founded in Algeria.
The first article says that movement was founded about 250 years ago.
The second article says that movement was founded about 1200 years ago. ~~Mind you, it may list dates as AD, when they should be in the Arabic style. Even then the founding would be hundreds of years apart.~~
So, the possibility we are not dealing with a fork is high. Geo Swan (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The guy this article says is the founder was a real person, a member of the Rustamid dynasty, who really was born in 788 AD. Geo Swan (talk) 03:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I did as much copy-editing as I could, given the article creator has a less than perfect grasp of English.
I added one reference from the article on the founder, Abd al-Wahhab ibn Rustam.
I know there are rules and guidelines about articles that seem imperfectly translated. I don't know what they are. As a courtesy to the article creator, should we postpone the closure until seven days from my email to the article creator?
As I wrote above I am convinced this is not a fork. If anyone knows a fair-minded individual who is bilingual in both English and Arabic, perhaps they could be asked to weigh in? Geo Swan (talk) 03:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:FRINGE and WP:NOTESSAY. The Rustamid dynasty rose and fell 1,000 years before Wahhabism even existed. This would be patent nonsense were it not for the fact that the sentences are at least coherent and follow a single train of thought. However, it's still an unsourced work of original research proposing an idea so ridiculous that no actual scholar would take it seriously. This is the equivalent of claiming that a random Roman emperor was a Clintonian Democrat. It's that silly. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:03, 29 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 . Materialscientist (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinuvadi[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (PROD was removed by the creator of the article without giving any reason.) I also note that the article says that this is "an upcoming colloquial usage in malayalam". Experience shows that when someone uses the word "upcoming" in a Wikipedia article they create, it most often means "not yet notable or significant, but I hope it will be one day". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: ~~This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.~~ Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC) – now removed: Malayalam is not the same as Malay, – Uanfala 10:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 10:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM. Most of the article seems to be copied off Urban Dictionary, most likely the same person who added those definitions created this article. — Quasar G. 10:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable neologism.- Mr X 11:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also think that a speedy deletion criterion might be met, just not sure which one. - TheMagnificentist 15:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#A11 comes to mind.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, unencyclopaedic, unuseful.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per everyone else. I too find the "upcoming" phrase to be suspect. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:54, 24 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Polo Piatti (composer)[edit]

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

Polo Piatti is a salted title after repeated deletions. This page should be subjected to AfD, and if it survives, moved to the protected Polo Piatti. Legacypac (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G4 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polo Piatti). If you really want a rationale, Piatti gets no coverage outside of non-notable local news like Hastings Online Times. This does not qualify as WP:SIGCOV and the sources' reliability is questionable. — Quasar G. 10:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per all the above. As I do not have the deleted article on hand, I can only speculate, but I choose to speculate that the concerns raised last time remain pointedly unaddressed in this new article. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Draft:Polo Piatti which has been repeatedly declined and needs to go with this page. I'm redirecting it to the mainspace title. Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep completely different content from the last deleted version.

http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Polo_Piatti

Many sources are from Hastings & St. Leonards Observer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NiuktKlaw (talk • contribs) 06:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC) — NiuktKlaw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Naming the article "Polo Piatti (composer)" means one of two things. First, it implies that there is another Polo Piatti who has an article on Wikipedia; the parentheses would distinguish between the two Polo Piattis, but since we don't even have coverage of one Polo Piatti, the parentheses are unnecessary. Second, it shows Mwoodham1990 (talk · contribs) named the page the way they did specifically to get around the restriction of creating the article at Polo Piatti, not interpreting the salting as the final ruling but only one more obstacle to overcome. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in reliable sources outside of local news. Just because a recreated article looks different from the deleted version doesn't mean that it should be kept. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:33, 28 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 22:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Livia Nichifor[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for this Romanian doctor. She existed and was a director of a children's home in Romania and was awarded a medal. Nothing here suggests any notability and the refs are simply about her existence, her medal and her slightly better known son. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - as noted, no sourced evidence suggests this individual was anything but a fairly ordinary doctor. The communist regime handed out hundreds of medals each year, and the one she won was decidedly minor. I especially call attention to the obituary in Viața Medicală, a seemingly independent reference: that text is basically lifted from the now-deleted ro.wiki article, making it a veritable Russian doll of self-publication.
I'd also like to point out that this was not only deleted on ro.wiki earlier this month, but that User:Al Balint (note that Dr. Nichifor's maiden name was Balint) admitted to being none other than the subject's son, Șerban Nichifor. Moreover, during that discussion, he created no fewer than six sockpuppets: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
Finally, let me note that back in 2012, Mr. Nichifor was editing as Snichifor and as Serbannichifor, making this at least his third account here; note also this strangeness.
Anyway, in conclusion, WP:NOTAMEMORIAL applies, and let's hope we have a less contentious and sockpuppet-filled discussion than on ro.wiki. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find any published sources about the subject, apart from the obituary in Viata Medicala. This link is to the real obituary, not the fake one uploaded to Scribd.com. They are somewhat different. Even so, this is simply not enough. There are no other aspects to her biography in the WP article or the obit which indicate that subject comes anywhere near to passing either WP:ANYBIO or WP:PROF. The entire article is referenced to primary sources apart from the obit. This is simply not acceptable. She died quite recently (April 2017). Had she been a figure of national importance, there would have been something in the mainstream Romanian press. I can't find anything. Voceditenore (talk) 15:04, 30 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. Discussions about merge may be entertained at talk page. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 13:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Alwar mob lynching[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, all sources have pretty much replicated each other and none of them dates any after 8 April. Clear violation of WP:OR. Article probably violates copyrights too with close paraphrasing to source. Capitals00 (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Cow-based lynching. The topic itself is notable, albeit being minor. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it is not WP:NOTNEWS and meets WP:N(E). The event is notable and has been covered in detailed. The latest coverage[11] was just 2 days ago. Jionakeli (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect – As Kautilya3 suggested above to Cow-based lynching. Sorry to say that WP:NOTNEWS does apply here as a stand-alone piece but the article would contribute to the Cow-based lynching. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it is WP:NOTNEWS? All the 4 points listed there can't be attributed to this topic. It has significant coverage in both national and international media and is still being covered[12],[13] after 2 months from the incident. Jionakeli (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG. And has good sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know why people are wasting our time with frivolous AfDs. This was a major news event in India, reported by newspapers around the world, running into the thousands. A Muslim dairy farmer in his late 50s in the western Indian state of Rajasthan, who was transporting two cows he and his son had bought at an animal fair back to their farm, was brutally attacked and eventually murdered by screaming band of 20-something, semi-literate, Hindu nationalist goons, who were accusing the man and his son of intention to slaughter the two animals, the violence recorded by a passer-by. If there is close paraphrasing, it needs to be corrected, but the event is very notable. Cow-based lynching is the garbage article that needs to be instantly AfD'd, if for no other reason than its title not being idiomatic English. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge with Cow-based lynching. No convictions took place either nor the individuals involved in this incident are any notable or continuously discussed. 223.223.135.253 (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Police has already arrested 3 persons and looking for the key accused[14],[15] and the topic is still being covered in mediaAlwar lynching: Pehlu Khan’s uncle threatens to commit suicide with entire family.Jionakeli (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replica reports from April are not going to establish notability or add any importance. See WP:NOTNEWS. Capitals00 (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are not replica reports nor press releases. Each new event got enough press coverage making WP:NOTNEWS inapplicable to it[16]. The topic has been covered in almost all national media including international media like the New York Times[17], the Guardian[18] etc. Even it has been referred to document many other topics related to Rajasthan, Govt. policies:

Centre Introduces New Clause In Animal Protection Law To Ban Sale Of Cows For Slaughter Across India
Growing: 65 Former Officers Write Open Letter
Will rehabilitate those rendered jobless due to new rules: Raje
Haryana: Mewat cattle traders face severe loss after government's slaughter notification

and more[19]. There are other similar lynching incidents in Assam[20], in Delhi[21] but this particular topic got enough importance to have its own article.Jionakeli (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cow-based lynching is pretty short and navigation could be improved by merging all three separate articles on such events into a single article. But that would take a lot of work and editing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It will take a few minutes or hours. I am seeing that these articles have been unnecessarily expanded by over-emphasizing the material, repeating it on lead, then other sections, despite each incident deserves description of no more than 3 or 4 sentences. Capitals00 (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Yes, if someone wanted to do the work it wouldn't take that long, I overstated things. Just not something I'm really interested in doing, I'm afraid and of course there may be some pushback from the editors who've created separate incident articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Dadri mob lynching is probably notable, but rest are not and they are SPA creations. Best is to go and AFD each of them if this AFD closes against keep. Capitals00 (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I haven't looked into the separate articles as thoroughly as you. I'm generally all for having one really great main article. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is short no more and will likely be expanded significantly. I have been drafting a similar article and just moved the material into that article.VR _talk 21:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is a very notable event with long-term consequences. I've been researching it for months now. As of last week media is still publishing articles on the event. I understand the article currently isn't great, but it can be expanded.VR _talk 21:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge with Cow-based lynching, no need for a separate article it doesn't received much global coverage like the Dadri incident.Redhat101 Talk 06:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV without guideline connection does not trump WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 09:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, this incident in Rajasthan was covered extensively by the Indian media and foreign publications like The Guardian, Khaleej Times, The National and The New York Times. This is still being covered (See Hindustan Times, The Indian Express, Indiatimes, Frontline and The Quint). There have been several incidents of almost the same nature but the coverage received by this death is enough to warrant a standalone article. Incidents of less note can be merged to a suitable place but this one meets WP:GNG and the continued coverage shows that this isn't a regular news item. --Skr15081997 (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- has the appearance of being a significant event 'Month after murder, Pehlu’s killers walk free', Times of India & Delaying Justice For Pehlu Khan a Mockery of Governance, Say Former IAS Officers, Thwire.in, for example. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes GNG. ChunnuBhai (talk) 07:49, 29 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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Colliflower[edit]

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

Does not appear notable (WP:GNG). Also, unreferenced, and all I see are mentions in passing. Being a coach is not enough. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient sources to pass WP:Prof or even WP:Sport or WP:GNG. Totally un-notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I added several sources from newspapers.com so the article now does have sources. The availability of sources for a figure whose career occurred in the first couple of decades of the 20th century are always going to be a bit spotty, but looking at the sources, Colliflower seemed to get a good amount of press coverage as both a player and coach, and his family was a prominent sports family in Washington DC in the 1900s through about the twenties. We typically presume notability for major college basketball head coaches, because they generally do receive this type of press. I am confident more sources exist if we had access to his full contemporary media, but I think the pieces I added at least demonstrate meeting WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rikster2. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rikster2 Rlendog (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rikster2. Cbl62 (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per Rikster2's work. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sources to meet GNG, per Rikster2. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:44, 27 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) 10:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques-Henri Bronckart[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Bgwhite with the following rationale "Producing 30+ films makes him notable. A simple google search shows he has produced many films". Well, it's not the quantity but quality that makes one notable. And this is a problem - not seeing sources suggesting awards, critical reception, reviews... just being a film producer is not enough to be in a encyclopedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Also WP:CREATIVE suggest that if any of these films have been reviewed by critics, then their producer is notable. Has the nominator done his WP:BEFORE? Newimpartial (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found some articles about him, mostly in foreign-language media.[22][23][24]. Not sure it quite meets WP:GNG but there are also shorter references in articles on other topics. Searching Belgian and French-language newspapers appears to give more results. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CREATIVE. He produced more than thirty notable films, founded a production and distribution company, and received a number of nominations at the Magritte Awards. I've expanded the article to include more coverage about his work. --Earthh (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it's a close call. Bronckart is legit, notability is the only issue, and the list of films is substantive in number and kind. --Lockley (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 13:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Jauregui[edit]

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

Since the last afD, the only thing that changed is the release of "Strangers (Halsey song)", a promo single where she is featured. It has entered some national charts, in lower positions. It fits her section on the band's article. I believe it doesn't make her notable as a solo artist yet. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 07:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I mentioned in the first AfD for this article that she had just released a song. Not only did her second collaboration chart on the Billboard Hot 100, she has also made headlines when she came out as bisexual in a letter published by Billboard and won the Celebrity of the Year award at the British LGBT Awards, beating other nominees such as Lady Gaga and Laverne Cox (from Orange is the New Black). Personally, I think she is a rising star and has a recognizable name apart from her brand in Fifth Harmony. She deserves a seperate article. In fact, skimming through the page as it is right now, it seems she has her share of information to document on her solo endeavors, early life, X Factor journey before being formed as one-fifth of Fifth Harmony and her personal life (including relationships with front-runner Brad Simpson of The Vamps and rumored ex-girlfriend Lucy Vives, daughter of Colombian singer Carlos Vives. De88 (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@De88: I don't believe those two relationships are encyclopedic. These first comments could help. How notable is that award ceremony? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cornerstonepicker: According to sources, it has been dubbed "Britain's gay Oscars". Prince William made a speech when he won the Straight Ally award as well. This definitely is an award ceremony recognized by celebrities and other influential folks. WP may not be a tabloid because I find it perfectly reasonable to mention the relationships that someone of celebrity status has had, especially when those she dated were famous as well. The majority of actors and singers have this section so I don't see why this should exclude Lauren's article. Celebrities who come out also have this mentioned in their articles. Plus, her coming out is backed up with the Billboard article (which is a very reliable source in the music industry). De88 (talk) 08:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@De88: That was exactly the point: just because she's dating someone 'famous' doesn't mean it belongs in a WP article. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per above. One song charted in the Billboard Hot 100, clearly notable per WP:MUSICBIO. Speedy because the nomination may not be reasonable. - TheMagnificentist 08:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMagnificentist: 70% of the article is from Fifth Harmony. the rest is her coming-out letter and her relationships. WP is not a tabloid. There's no much to say about her two collabs, that little perfectly fits her original section. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She meets both criteria, general and music. By that, other minor issues are irrelevant. Per GNG, if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Per MUSICBIO, Musicians may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria: (2) Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. Both are met, I don't see an issue. Her original song charted in France, her featured song charted in the US and some coverage [25][26][27]. Per WP:Split, content from the band's article should be reduced so that more can be added to the separate article. - TheMagnificentist 08:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMagnificentist: Consider this: as I said most of the article is Fifth Harmony information. It is clearly a filler, the split is not justified. Her coming out letter and two singles as featured artist doesn't justify a stand-alone article. As an example, former member Camila Cabello didn't have an article until she went solo, even after her second single as a featured artist entered the top 20 in the US, because her article would have been a c/p from the band's. Jauregui is in WP, as a member of a band, which personal projects are included in their section. Cornerstonepicker (talk)

@Cornerstonepicker: doesn't really matter if it's Fifth Harmony's info. As long as the main criteria are met, she is deemed notable to have her own article. What you just said has nothing to do with Wikipedia's inclusion policies. It's entirely your own opinion. - TheMagnificentist 23:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMagnificentist: I'm well aware how afD talk works, is not enterely "per WP:--". If you just copy and paste information from the main article to make it bigger, you're motivating the split. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources for her activities apart from Fifth Harmony to warrant an independent article. For example, here are some articles on her single with Marian Hill [28][29][30] and her single with Halsey: [31][32][33][34]. This demonstrates that the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, and this information can be supplemented with "personal life" content such as her Trump comments from this month and last November [35][36][37], her citation for marijuana possession [38][39], and her sexuality [40][41]. gongshow talk 18:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gongshow: her citacion for marihuana possession is encyclopedic? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said only that the details of this person's "personal life" serve to supplement the material - i.e., the first seven articles I linked - which establish that WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO are met. The part in italics is what I'm focusing on here. gongshow talk 05:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:NMG. DrStrauss talk 20:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect She does not have enough notable information to create her own stand alone article and she is not notable outside the group until she is the page should remain as Redirect to Fifth Harmony#Lauren Jauregui. This shouldn't even be a discussion but since it is I'm willing join the discussion and fight the topic! WeLcOmEtOtHenEwMiLlEnIuM _(Talk) 20:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to her music career, her notability gets an uptick in the last 6 months by being named #1 on the AfterEllen.com "Hot List" for 2016 (Link Here). I'm adding this for notability evidence (and it can't hurt to be added to the article) but honestly, this is a remarkably well sourced article and it's genuinely odd that it's coming to AfD at all. -Markeer 02:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CloudMade[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Galinabesedina (WP:SPA) with no rationale; subsequently most of their additions were deleted as copyvio. This is an ad for a company that fails notability; sources are mentions-in-passing, and primary sources such as press releases or business as usual press-release reprints reporting 'acquired X, hired Z'. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam, with content such as "...with products including a machine learning platform,[1][2] a content aggregation platform,[3][4][5] a connected car analytics solution[6] and a map data crowdsourcing toolset[7]" (talk about ref spam). Tech startups are rarely notable and this one does not meet the mark, per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is a stretch, and even if one admits notability, the article itself is blatant promotion. Clearly anything calling itself a "solution" that is not a solution is a product of marketing. W Nowicki (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant promotions, corporate spam and no significance.Light2021 (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Blatent corporate spam. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:16, 26 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 Fifth Harmony#Ally Brooke. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 13:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ally Brooke[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Since the last afD, the only thing that changed is the release of "Look At Us Now". Per WP:NSONG, it hasn't entered a notable national chart, only two component charts. I believe it doesn't make her notable as a solo artist. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 07:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One song charted in an acceptable Billboard chart per WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS, meets notability criteria per WP:MUSICBIO. - TheMagnificentist 08:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Fifth Harmony article. The significant references point to her within the context of that group. As cited above, there is a billboard chart appearance, but the accomplishment really belongs to the group Lost Kings. She is credited as one of two "featured" guest. It is the only thing that can be argued to establish stand alone notability outside of Fifth Harmony. Noting that meeting criteria specify's that an artist "may" be notable rather than "is", I contend a single example isn't enough, especially when the weight of the achievement belongs to someone else. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ShelbyMarion: Maybe the song is charted only because of Ally Brooke? All of Lost Kings' charted songs are collaborations with vocalists. I don't think the accomplishment belongs to Lost Kings alone. - TheMagnificentist 15:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are the lead artist. Even if as a feature Brooke is the reason it charted in that component chart, it doesn't justify a stand-alone article. That little information can be included in her section, which she has in a Wikipedia article. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cornerstonepicker: I think per WP:COMMONSENSE, it is reasonable for this 'rising star' to have her own article as it's blatantly obvious that there will be more charted songs and the likeliness of suddenly becoming non-notable is just not possible. She will definitely receive more coverage. I know my point is negated by WP:CRYSTAL but with the current sources and charted songs easily seeing her meet WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BASIC, all the relevant criteria have been met and whether the article should be deleted because all the information is on the band's article is a matter of opinion and in mine, I think the article will only expand bigger as time goes by and that it will eventually be re-created again. Reasons to have the article deleted will get lesser. Similar articles (Zayn Malik, Louis Tomlinson) are proof. They were nominated for deletion in the past but eventually became notable and there's no reason to delete them now. - TheMagnificentist 07:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to group article. "Commonsense" called on above is an excuse to make Wikipedia a crystal ball. We do not know what will happen in the future and have to base are decisions on things as they stand now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John, but would you not consider the fact this article meets the relevant criteria like GNG and MUSICBIO. Don't you think that's all needed for the article to survive deletion? My comment above was just to emphasise that the article doesn't need deletion as she might get even more notable in the future. The basic criteria are met. - TheMagnificentist 15:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect She has not gained notability outside the group and the article must remain back to Redirect Fifth Harmony#Ally Brooke ---WeLcOmEtOtHenEwMiLlEnIuM _(Talk) 02:21, 29 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 Sberbank of Russia. As noted, there is more substantial coverage of this topic on another wiki - so if appropriate, the contents of this article plus any expansion of such can go in the article on the owner of this product. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin 03:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sbercard[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:DGG with the following rationale "can at least be merged". But merged where? He didn't say and I don't see an obvious target. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep and expand or merge to Central Bank of Russia This is apparently the major commercial bank in Russia. According to the article on the Central Bank of Russia, "The Bank of Russia owns a 57.58% stake in Sberbank, the country's leading commercial bank." Such a bank should have an article. The present article may be essential a directory entry, but it is not spam. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep or merge to Sberbank of Russia, because the card was designed for use by the Sberbank customers. This article has much more substantial coverage in Russian wiki. The card did exist up until 2012 and was quite popular because of the spread of the Sberbank network, which remains to be the largest bank network in the country. Definetely not a spam. Fiddler11 06:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fidler11 (talk • contribs)
Merge and Delete to Sberbank of Russia. The card no longer exists but the bank does. On its own, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sberbank of Russia; there's nothing to merge as the article consists of two sentences and does not list 3rd party sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UltraPlayer[edit]

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

he coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The coverage from around 15 years ago (generally mention in relation to media players such as Winamp) is enough to provide basic verification but I don't see sufficient depth to demonstrate notability whether by WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hard to find sources for this one (just at the end of the published magazines era): 1/3 page in Singaporean HWM magazine [42] and solid looking article on technet.idnes.cz (major Czech media portal): [43]. Beside these, only brief coverage like comparison of MP3 players on pcworld.cz (Czech version of PC World) [44] and some short news. Pavlor (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A7 material and no sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Drew[edit]

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

Echoing what Kudpung said in the now-removed PROD.No in-depth coverage ( mostly only cast and credit listings) about the subject. A plethora of such trivial sources does not add up to notability per WP:CREATIVE or WP:NACTOR.I may add that the paid-promotional work no-doubt looks good!She did a commendable job! Winged Blades^Godric 06:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. part of a promotional campaign. That's reason enough or deletion--but in addition there seems to be insufficient notability as a performer, and I t would take very strong evidence to show that his later promotional activities were notable--however noble the cause. DGG ( talk ) 14:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as original PRODer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:53, 26 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 3M. czar 21:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3M Health Care[edit]

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

Typical promotional work.Fails WP:GNG. Winged Blades^Godric 06:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete by redirecting to 3M. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 3M / merge. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 3M, not required a separate article. Light2021 (talk) 19:16, 25 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. But can it be a hoax if it is tasty? czar 21:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yabbie Schniztel[edit]

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

WP:NOTCOOKBOOK just another recipe article Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references. No indication of notability. Just here to give the author an entry in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I lean towards hoax. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no sources whatever. Fails WP:GNG. I agree a hoax looks likely, as I tried just looking up "yabbie recipes." What I found mostly was variants of boiling and saucing - nothing at all like this recipe article proposes. WP:NOTCOOKBOOK. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:08, 28 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 21:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Dunn (footballer)[edit]

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

Non-notable soccer player, fail WP:GNG - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Also fails WP:NSPORTS, the relevant subject-specific notability guideline. Hack (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both criteria Spiderone 17:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Hack, why did you create the article? Hmlarson (talk) 19:37, 30 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 List of Star Wars starfighters. The "keep" opinion does not address the sourcing problems. Sandstein 12:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B-wing[edit]

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

This is not a canonical Star Wars vehicle. The article fails to cite any discussion of cultural impact or significance. We have references to primary sources, and merchandise pages. That's about it. There is no denying that X-wing or TIE fighter are very notable, but B-wing is not. Not everything that appears in a movie, game or LEGO set is notable. If you disagree, please cite a source that discusses cultural impact/significance of this, and don't link to the dime a dozen plot summaries or mentions in passing that it appears in a game or a comic book. PS. I recommend a soft deletion, with redirect and selective merge if anyone sees any reascuable content to List of Star Wars starfighters. There's plenty of non-notable -wings there, such as E-wing or V-wing already. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Piotrus. No evidence of the B-wing's cultural impact or significance. Cjhard (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge to List of Star Wars starfighters per WP:ATD-M, and my inability to find any RS'es. What I DID see is that most of the shots featuring these models were cut from RotJ, so the nom's comment that these are non-canonical is not quite correct, even though they are prominently featured in the extended universe. (Although, as an aside, "canon" has very little relevance to Wikipedia: something is either covered in RS, or it's not) Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, I misused the word canonical. I meant, not well-known/classic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per Jclemens. /Julle (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC) Missed signature added by Julle (talk) at 00:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this clearly satisfies the first pillar of Wikipedia which states that it should include content from specialized encyclopedias. Starspotter (talk) 11:54, 29 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 List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles#Snowspeeder. Arguments are that references provided are only passing mentions or primary sources and don't rise to the level required by our notability guidelines. I've already completed a partial merge, but if any additional content should be merged, it can be done so from the article history. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin 03:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snowspeeder[edit]

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

There is no doubt that many Star Wars vehicles are notable, as they have a ton of significance, influence, etc. Death Star, Star Destroyers, X-wing, TIE Fighter, the Walker... but I doubt this Snowspeeder ranks up there with them. Sources are poor - mentions in passing, primary sources, of course. Some merchandise, ditto. But there's no in-depth coverage, no sources for discussion of cultural impact, significance. There is no denying the immense impact SW had on culture but we don't need entries on footnote artifacts like this. Snowspeeder, a vehicle that made a brief and forgettable appearance in a single movie, is not encyclopedic-worthy. PS. I suggest soft delete, with redirect and possible merge of some content to List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles, where a mention of it can safely co-exist somewhere between the "Homing spider droid" and the "Wookiee ornithopter". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~merge~~ per above - probably something that could be done without AfD? Artw (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to keep, per below seems like this thing gets enough mileage it should have its own article. Artw (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Video Game use, LEGO model, Collectibles guide, and a bare mention, but it's in the Guiness World Records 2017, Gamer's Edition. And then there's Google Scholar: Of snowspeeders and Imperial Walkers: Fannish play at the Wisconsin protests, The Empire's New Clothes, A Question of Character: Transmediation, Abstraction, and Identification in Early Games Licensed From Movies. Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Which part of the 'mentions in passing don't qualify' you don't understand? Let's take a look at treatment of snowspeeder in [45]: "The screen played a looped sequence from The Empire Strikes Back in which a Rebel Alliance snowspeeder attaches a cable to a huge lumbering AT-AT (All Terrain Armored Transport) Imperial Walker on the snow planet of Hoth. The speeder then winds the cable around the walker until the doglike machine is crippled, unable to walk, and collapses... Fannish signs and play can build that morale and strengthen those communities, and in that respect, they may occasionally prove as useful for bringing down Imperial Walkers as a well-placed light saber or snowspeeder cable." Which part of this plot summary/passing reference makes snowspeeder notable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - If it cannot establish notability, it does not need to exist. None of the above sources look particular useful. TTN (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - agree that the sources are passing mentions and primary sources. Not notable enough on its own to merit an article. A Lego model means it's notable? If that's the best argument for Keep - well, tough sell. LAroboGuy (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to DA module series. Most specific target. czar 21:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Duchy of Ten[edit]

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

Old declined prod. I like D&D, but not all gaming supplements are notable. Books and games require reviews, awards, stuff. This article doesn't indicate it has any, and I couldn't find anything except social media (forums, blogs) discussions mentioning it. And primary sources, of course, the loop is there. Anyway, fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (media) and such. No indication that the cited single source is not a mention in passing. There is certainly nothing in the article to suggests this supplement was significant in any way. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. BOZ (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to list per above. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to DA module series. I am also unable to find sufficient RS. Jclemens (talk) 03:01, 24 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holding Back[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Winged Blades^Godric 04:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 04:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 04:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reviews, no awards, no coverage, fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 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 22:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Daidone[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. I failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are about Mr. Daidone, though there are several sources that mention him in the context of the one event that has gotten him RS coverage. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 03:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS, having his name mentioned in few news stories is not enough to be in an encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nominator is only proposing a merge. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free World Charter[edit]

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

This should be merged to the page on Colin Turner. It's largely duplicated there already. The only non-self-published sources in the article are about him. I cleaned it up before nominating, but it appears unsalvageable. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Merge. Agreed, not seeing any independent coverage. He invented it, but it didn't get any traction beyond few mentions in articles about him, nobody discussed it for itself. Fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Straange[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Was deleted earlier as A7, and the creator blocked. The person returns after the block and recreates it with new references, all of them being non-notable books (Assuming he is indeed discussed in these books - All the references provided are offline). Online searches don't indicate anything to pass WP:GNG - though there seems to exist an unrelated musician by the same name. Jupitus Smart 03:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 03:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 03:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete references are implausible. If Staange was discussed in Busher (2007) he would have been +/- 15 years old at the time. Mduvekot (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That's your logic? --Thomasarrango (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, fails WP:BLPNOTE for lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There is no claim made as to notability. I note that Neo-Minimalism Review by Guo Manqing is published by Blurb (a vanity publisher). The cited book authored by Maggie Hobbs Lynn does not appear to be held in any library, nor by any bookseller (new or used). A "Maggie Hobbs Lynn" does have a facebook page, indicating that she lives in Charlotte, North Carolina and is from Darlington, South Carolina, but there is nothing to indicate that she is an author. No works by Maggie Hobbs Lynn as author were found in any database, including Wilson's Art Index, Gale's Fine Arts and Music Collection, and Gale's Pop Culture Collection. If the source exists it does not appear to meet the reliability standards. Sean Busher is a Charlotte advertising photographer. There is nothing to indicate that he is a reliable source. Knowing where these "sources" were published would help, as would full citations and isbns. --Bejnar (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ Maggie works at Charlotte Business Journals a notable publisher where I found countless of notable artist from the city or from outside the city. The book written and published every year is credible --Thomasarrango (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RSSELF about reliability measures regarding self-published works. Maggie Hobbs Lynn is not a journalist, she is a graphic designer employed by the Charlotte Business Journal. The Book of Lists is an annual compilation of all the lists that appeared in the weekly print and online editions of the Charlotte Business Journal during the year, as such it is a directory listing. Maggie Hobbs Lynn did the graphical layout for the 2016 volume. By the way only a single !vote is permitted per person; second "keep" !vote stricken. --Bejnar (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Thomasarrango's remark above, and my research, it appears that notability, if any, of David Straange is purely local to Charlotte. --Bejnar (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to point fingers in where I got the information from so I stand corrected. That means it rules out that he fails WP:GNG:, also Amy Shapiro must be the correct source if she writes the articles. I've also seen David Straange written in music magazines, notable sites, and BBC music. Solely for the subject of art there's books and articles and by the date he's been active since a kid. So I don't understand the votes --Thomasarrango (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, local noteriety does not indicate that he meets WP:GNG. Also, directory information does not go towards notability. If, in fact, David Straange has significant coverage in music magazines and the BBC, then your job is to find and cite them. See Wikipedia:Citing sources, and especially Wikipedia:Citing sources#What information to include. I have spent a considerable amount of time online searching out info about David Straange. I have not found any significant coverage. Amy Shapiro oversees research and production of weekly industry lists and the Book of Lists for the Charlotte Business Journal. "Straange" does not currently appear anywhere on the bizjournals.com website. --Bejnar (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree he's definitely written in a bizjournal article, which I have and found out about his art show even if not noted on the site. The music stuff I found includes a write up on verified music site Tiny Mixtapes , Boiler Room. Further digging he used to use an alias "KVZE?" which I found a slew of write ups on sites I follow like Ego Trip Land, which is Jeff Mao's site, Earmilk which is definitely a notable music site, including a write up on AdhocFM So this guy has some serious history to be a artist born in 1992. I don't understand at all I'm guessing David Straange is art STRAANGE and KVZE are music? I can merge them but the amount of history is mindboggling to say the least --Thomasarrango (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A BBC entry that's since been removed for a radio entry under 'KVZE?' --Thomasarrango (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a citation? (Much of BBC News is archived.) Can you clarify what the reference was? --Bejnar (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I searched BBC Music for 'STRAANGE' and 'KVZE' and got an entry for KVZE and now I see the entry has been removed. This was a couple of weeks ago when I found out about the alias for the first time --Thomasarrango (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the discussion has veered way off course, let me put it back once again. We are discussing about deleting David Straange, the neo-minimalist painter. The current discussion going on is about whether musicians STRAANGE/KVZE pass WP:GNG (which they probably don't though that is immaterial). Just because David Straange and musician Straange share a 'strange' surname does not imply they are the same person. And I have no idea why we are even discussing KVZE, when there is nothing to link him to either of the 'STRAANGE' people. So I would request the author to not waste everybody's time by taking the discussion off course unless there are references from reliable sources to indicate the connection. Jupitus Smart 03:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why are you so unprofessional to make such personal attacks to imply I'm wasting everyone's time. That's what we're discussing and been discussing with or without you. --Thomasarrango (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting editors to stay on point is not usually regarded as a "personal attack", rather it is an effort at civility when off-point discussions threaten to become frustrating, and it is entirely consistent with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Also, @Thomasarrango:, please see the essay at Wikipedia:But there must be sources!. --Bejnar (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does not appear that the artist and the musician are the same person. The artist/painter lives in North Carolina, the musician/producer appears to live in Virginia. Neither one is notable under either WP:GNG or WP:BLPNOTE. --Bejnar (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When did you guys get so biased on here it's disappointing. I provided sources that are credible and does meet WP:GNG. Whether you are neutral enough to see it, that is the problem. It's relevant because infact if they are the same person the page should be edited and kept under one umbrella. --Thomasarrango (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please remember to confine votes and comments to the issue at hand. Be concise. Cite guidelines/policy when possible. Avoid personalizing comments. And be brief. Above all else, be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not assuming good faith for these offline sources -- inclined to believe that they don't exist. More importantly, perhaps Straange himself is a hoax. Alarm bells should sound when you can't find anything close to an RS about him online (in this day and age)! Even if he does exist, he does not appear to meet WP:MUSICIAN or even GNG... This is all very straange. Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:02, 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 My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 7)#ep144. czar 21:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Celestial Advice[edit]

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

Delete, this My Little Pony television episode from season seven has no independent notability, fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough information to justify a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 7)#ep145 unless notability can be established by third party sources. Gial Ackbar (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 7)#ep145; I concur with Gial Ackbar. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 17:23, 25 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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 13:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Himu[edit]

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

Unsourced for years. One ref that doesn't even meet WP:N for this. Either source it, merge to the author article, or delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCHAR. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 17:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Nom is correct that the article has been poorly sourced for a long time (other than the list of novels, which has been improved and is self-supporting). However, the fact that it is poorly sourced doesn't mean reliable sources haven't written about the topic. I've added to a "further reading" section 15 English-language sources that could be used to improve the article. Since Himu is a character in Bengali-language literature, it is likely that there are additional sources in that language. If such sources are needed, I suggest enlisting the help of WikiProject Bangladesh and/or WikiProject India.

It's unclear how the the failed proposal WP:NCHAR factors into this discussion. Himu is the most popular recurring character of the most popular and prolific author in modern Bengali fiction, so he's the sort of topic one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. To argue that he's not notable would be like arguing that Jeeves or Tarzan is not notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that many sources were added to the article (diff) after the nomination for deletion occurred.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lack of 3rd party cites makes the subject extremely vulnerable to AfDs, but as Worldbruce puts, Himu is one of the most significant fictional characters in Bengali literature, so much so, that books on him by Humayun Ahmed is often considered as a genre of its own. I was looking at Misir Ali by Ahmed, Professor Shonku and Feluda by Satyajit Ray and Kakababu by Sunil Gangopadhyay; all of these characters has somewhat similar significance and incidentally all of them are start-class or C-class articles. In 17 years, article on Himu haven't been improved so much. Same goes for many more articles in Wikipedia; all of these articles needs to be worked on, not deleted. While, AfDs are useful in cutting useless backlog, these are among those subject that has to be sustained and improved. --nafSadh did say 17:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an encyclopedia and we deal only in verifiable facts. The article is almost entirely unsourced WP:OR and massively fails WP:V. Referencing is not optional and Famous ≠ Notable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone can reduce the article to a stub by removing unverifiable content, but is it your position that the fifteen independent, reliable, secondary sources listed in the "further reading" section fail to establish that the topic meets WP:GNG? If so, how do they fail? --Worldbruce (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see 25 books listed of which 21 are novels. Of the other four I don't know what they are as they are in Bengali and no explanation has been offered so they may or may not be reliable secondary sources. NCHAR says...

The coverage from reliable sources should talk about the character in a way which gives its notability from a real world or out-of-universe perspective. This means they are covered as a character in general, and not in the frames of its own series of fiction. For example, an observation of in-game statistics or a simple retelling of their role in the plot means little; the source should give commentary on why these things make it an interesting or notable character.

At present I am not convinced the external links ring the WP:N bell, although I am open minded on the subject if someone wants to offer a more detailed explanation of the latter four. Beyond the question of notability however, removing the unsourced content would reduce the article to a single sentence. Given the length of time it has remained unsourced since being tagged I have no reason to expect it will be expanded with sourced material and perma-stubs are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Perhaps that sentence could be moved into another article and this could be turned into a redirect until someone is actually prepared to write an adequately sourced article. In the end however, a single sentence stub is not enough for a stand alone article where history suggests there is little likelihood of expansion. And just for clarification, if this article is kept without substantial improvement in referencing, I will stub it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about two different things. The 25 novels you speak of are, as you say, primary sources, and don't establish notability. They aren't being used to support any facts other than that they are Humayun Ahmed's novels in which Himu appears (or are Himu-related, as in Himu Mama). However, the sourced list is itself useful content, whether kept here, kept but re-characterized as List of Himu novels (à la Canon of Sherlock Holmes or Hercule Poirot in literature), or merged to author Humayun Ahmed.

What I'm talking about are the 15 English-language newspaper and magazine articles below the references, in the Further reading section. These are independent, reliable, secondary sources, of varying depth. They contain discussion of the character from a real world perspective and comment on why it is an interesting or notable character. My position is that they establish the notability of Himu as a topic, that they could be used to write a more than one sentence article on the topic, that the article is thus not a permastub (not a stub that has no reasonable prospect for expansion), and that, added during this discussion, they demonstrate that the article is being improved (even if identifying potential sources is a small step and has taken many years). --Worldbruce (talk) 15:12, 26 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 02:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- According to the sources present in the further reading section of the page subject passes GNG.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 07:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Radford[edit]

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

The subject of the article is not in and of himself notable to pass WP:NPOL for the fact he is President the Liberal Party (successor to the Liberal Party which merged with the SDP) per se —the depth and breadth of sourcing here is not enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. Of the ten sources here, seven are general coverage of elections failing the notability guidelines, as any candidate get some background level of incidental coverage, and one is a primary source from the Liberal party directly; these cannot assist notability at all. Leaving just two pieces of reliable source. Of these one is a two word quote in a pink news article ,and one is a salacious story over his private life, in the local paper. Both of which are in now way enough to pass the notability guideline thresholds for his own article. The article also makes an unsourced claim regarding being the first openly gay Liverpool City Councillor, this is not backed up by a multiple reliable sources, and is not notable in and of itself to establish general notability. Its not a national first or the first openly gay Leader of Liverpool City Council, it fails to establish notability in and of itself. To earn a Wikipedia article, people at this level of significance have to be shown as significantly more notable than the norm for this level of significance, but nothing here shows that at all Sport and politics (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he's the president of a UK political party that has 10 councillors in 4 electorates, which is enough to make him worth searching for. I'm amused at the allegation that he keeps a gimp in his cellar. Note that he has edited his own biography. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough status of the party, a few councilors in a small part of a small party of the country does not pass the party beyond the Wp:NPOL threshold. Also is president the leader, it appears to be ambiguous. Sport and politics (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being president of a small political party, which holds no seats in any body higher than local authority councils, is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself. He could still qualify for an article on that basis if it were based on enough reliable source coverage about him to get him over WP:GNG, but the position does not create an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts him from having to be properly sourced. But what we have for sourcing here isn't cutting it at all — fully half of the sources are raw tables of election results which do not assist notability at all; one of the remaining five (Digital Journal) is a user-generated "amateur journalism" site to which anybody can submit "news" about anything they choose; and even the four that are properly reliable sources are split between glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage that isn't about him, and coverage in purely local-council contexts that doesn't constitute strong evidence of England-wide notability at all. No substantive coverage about him in the role of political party leader is being shown at all. All of which means that the depth and breadth of sourcing required to make a person at this level of public prominence notable enough for a WP:BLP is simply not in evidence. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs better inline citations and added coverage from the 2017 results but even simple Google search has material. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as the leader of a political party. I believe in keeping all articles about political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections without regard to size or ideology as a general principle as this is the sort of material that our readers should reasonably expect to be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. File this under the Policy of IAR if you must. Elected city council member as well so there is valid grounds for keeping per the SNG for politicians as well. Carrite (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear fail of WP:NPOL and WP:IAR is inappropriate to be applied to this article. as the precedent it would set would mean an article on everyone and everything. Sport and politics (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may disagree with my assessment, but WP:IAR does indeed apply: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Carrite (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject appears to fail NPOL and I'm not seeing enough in depth coverage to ring the WP:BASIC Bell. While I am sympathetic to the argument that the head of a serious political party should be presumptively notable there need to be limits. In this case we are talking about small... bordering on micro political party with no seats above the local level, and those being very few. Sorry but even on an IAR basis this is lowering the bar too far. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 23 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 02:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any in-depth national press coverage of him. It seems more appropriate to redirect to Liberal Party (UK, 1989) and include some detail about him there instead based on the coverage he has received. Ralbegen (talk) 12:30, 24 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 Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan#Events in Washington. Redirects are cheap! (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 13:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2004 U.S. Capitol Evacuation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was a one-day news story that fails notability under both WP:LASTING and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE OCNative (talk) 04:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan#Events in Washington, where the incident is already mentioned. Alternatively, delete and convert the incoming links to point there if the title is deemed unsearchable (which it very well may be). ansh 666 16:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete per Ansh666's reasoning - GretLomborg (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS; no redirect per Ansh666's reasoning, not a likely search. --Bejnar (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, allows bluelinks elsewhere to be sent where they need to be. Montanabw^(talk) 16:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There are only three incoming links from mainspace, one of which is the proposed redirect target and another of which is only in a long "see also" list, so it's not as big a deal as it may seem. ansh 666 19:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cmment No need for redirect on that basis, as only remaining blue link is a see also, which can be removed after the Afd. --Bejnar (talk) 19:01, 20 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 02:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a plausible search term. The incident was well-covered at the time, enough that someone might search for it, but not enough for its own article. Smartyllama (talk) 14:23, 28 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 List of attacks related to post-secondary schools. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 13:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Transylvania University machete attack[edit]

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

A WP:NOTNEWS event that received an expected wave of coverage in late April 2017. Since the peak of its attention has ended, it did not display any WP:LASTING impact (in fact local sources even claimed the university had "moved on" by May 1! [46]). There is an ongoing trial which inevitably will garner some attention but please remember this is WP:ROUTINE, not an indication of significant coverage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 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) 18:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a closer look, but a college student walking on campus and asking other students if they are Democrats or Republicans, then attacking the ones who give the "wrong" answer with a knife is hardly "routine."E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not recall calling the event itself "routine" but thanks for that. I think I wrote a rationale for why it is not notable, at least as a standalone article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of attacks related to post-secondary schools, which is all the mention that this needs. This doesn't seem to have gotten much national, let alone international, coverage - note how many of the sources in the article are local. Fails just about every facet of WP:NEVENT: no lasting effects, very limited geographical scope, coverage beyond local sources barely lasted beyond the day of the event, most of the non-local sources basically just say the same thing. ansh 666 00:35, 17 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 02:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It should absolutely not redirect to List of attacks related to post-secondary schools as that page's inclusion guidelines, to quote the page itself, excludes warfare, robberies, gang violence, political or police attacks. This was a politically-motivated attack and is thus ineligible to be included in the List of attacks related to post-secondary schools. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Millionsandbillions: you took that part out of context - it says immediately after (as part of protests), which does not apply here. ansh 666 17:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus states otherwise. Before this article was trimmed in October 2015 it used to include; the Mustansiriya University bombings, the Mercaz HaRav massacre, the Lal Masjid siege, the Gujba college massacre and the Boston Marathon bombing, which were all removed for this very reason (ie. being politically-motivated attacks.) Note that none of these attacks occurred during protests. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no, those are large-scale terrorist attacks. Quite different. ansh 666 21:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of attacks related to post-secondary schools, is a list that contains precisely this sort of incident.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it was not just "large-scale terrorist attacks" that were removed from the List of attacks related to post-secondary schools but rather all politically-motivated attacks; for example, the murder of Moritz Schlick at the University of Vienna used to be included, but was removed. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and selective merge to List of attacks related to post-secondary schools. I admit surprise that a politically conservative student complaining that political conservatives are scorned on campus, then seeking out and stabbing avowed Democrats did not draw much attention. However, beyond wire service story and a single reported story in the New York Daily News on the day it happened, the story seems to have drawn only local attention. If it becomes a thing, an article can of course be created, but at present the sources are simply not there to support a stand-alone article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above !votes d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:59, 26 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. Wizardman 22:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Crumbley[edit]

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

I PRODed a while ago and it was recreated and then PRODed again by BigHaz. The short: non-notable high school coach who has had some notable players. Coverage that exists is local, and he clearly fails the spirit of WP:NHSPHSATH. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my PROD rationale and Tony's above. Seems like a person who could tell some stories, but not a notable person. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- completely unremarkable. Sources are not WP:SIGCOV by any means. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:58, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Onur Tarçın[edit]

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

I've looked at the citations in both English and Turkish Wikis, and run a search. There are some self-published links, but I cannot find anything resembling either independent coverage or evidence of notability. Fails WP:BIO Narky Blert (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 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. So Why 17:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Klang Valley Mukkulathor Association[edit]

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

No independent references. No evidence of organizational notability.

Hard to tell what the subject is, anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:22, 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]

Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). No sources have been provided at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I am the president of this association and I can attach our certificate of registration if needed. We need this Wiki page. I have given two external links which refers to the association. Furthermore, you may also check in the official website of the Registrar of Societies. Search for PERSATUAN MUKKULATHOR LEMBAH KLANG (KLANG VALLEY MUKKULATHOR ASSOCIATION) at http://www.ros.gov.my/index.php/en/semakan-pendaftaran — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharmalan (talk • contribs) 08:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried the suggested search and didn't find a single WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Iskandarli[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point by point clarify why this article brake the rules of WP:GNG ? Best regards--Drdrmtlgst (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is enough here to satisfy WP:NPROF, let alone WP:GNG. Due to the special circumstances of academics, we have specific requirements that might allow academics to establish notability under WP:NPROF even if they do not meet WP:GNG. In this case, I don't think the scholarships will be enough. If you feel one of the criteria has been satisfied, please explain here. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 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]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I rarely relist articles more than twice but we have no votes at all here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not yet sufficient WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Not enough sources to satisfy the WP:GNG and his work has not had enough impact to pass WP:PROF. – Joe (talk) 08:19, 30 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. & friendly reminder to not bite the newcomers. Also a redirect to the mention at Ottawa Business Journal might have worked. czar 21:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Sutcliffe (Ottawa)[edit]

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

Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a local radio host on a single local radio station, and founder of a local interest magazine. There's no indication given here of notability to the rest of Canada or the world, and not enough sourcing to demonstrate that he passes WP:GNG -- and of the three sources here, one is not coverage about him, but a directory of content for which he was the bylined author, not the subject. And for added bonus, it's in the same newspaper that the other two citations are coming from -- which means he's a direct contributor to the only publication that's actually been cited for sourcing, thus making it not independent of him. As always, a person is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he can be nominally verified as existing -- but nothing here demonstrates a strong enough claim of notability, or sufficient sourcing, to earn him one. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:02, 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 07:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. "He exists" is not enough to be in encyclopedia, a common failure for articles by the (now banned) creator. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have made several edits to this page to bring it up to Wiki standards. Please do not delete—I request a review and acceptance. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Struttinmystuff (talk • contribs) 14:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

What you failed to do is to improve the sourcing: you added a blurb in a media trade magazine which covers an announcement about the company but fails to even mention Sutcliffe's name at all, a piece of the Ottawa Business Journal's own self-published coverage about itself, an "our staff" profile on the website of an organization he's directly involved with, and a press release from the city government. None of those sources bolster notability per WP:GNG at all, because every single one of them is not substantive, not independent of him, and/or not a reliable source media outlet at all. But again, a person gets a Wikipedia article if the sourcing is up to scratch, and is not automatically entitled to have one just because he exists. Also, while I can't prove anything outright, I strongly suspect that you have a conflict of interest and need to familiarize yourself with our rules around that.Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable individual of minor, local-only significance. A tribute page probably written by someone with a close connection to the subject. No value to the project, so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 25 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 16:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Pataki[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG the sources are far from being sufficient to prove notability. This looks very much like a promo piece to publicise a forthcoming book. Domdeparis (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 13:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 13:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In my opinion this is promotional spam to tout a forthcoming book. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Notability hinges on his writing career, which won't even start until the 11th. If then. --Lockley (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was weak keep. She seems to barely scrape through WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 13:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eku Edewor[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:BASIC as she has not been discussed by multiple independent sources. Also fails WP:NACTOR as she has neither had significant roles in multiple notable films nor has she made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to anything. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I recall this article being significantly improved by Wikiproject Nigeria and Wiki Loves Women editors in the last editathon. This is not a justification for keep, it just shows my stand is in cognizance with many other experienced editors.

Now back to the article, 53 Extra is a major program on M-Net Africa Magic for several years. It is hugely popular in terms of African lifestyle television. Similar to what E! does in the US, if you don't know E! news please use Google. She has gotten a number of awards from hosting the notable show on a number of occasions. Some of which includes, TV Presenter of the Year at the 2016 Nigeria Entertainment Awards and 2012 FAB Awards. As an actor she isn't the most accomplished, but she has starred in a decent amount of film productions. she won the 2014 Ghana Movie Award for the best African Collaboration in a film. Ghana Movie Award is the premier jury based film awarding system for Ghanaian films. She also got nominations at Golden Movie Awards and the best supporting actress at 2015 Golden Icons Academy Movie Awards. Notable films she has starred in includes Flower Girl, When love Comes Around , The Island, Entreat, etc.

If you are talking about significant coverage, this is a few, please take note of the adjectives these reliable sources used in describing her: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. She has hosted countless amount of notable African ceremonies. Was a finalist at Britain's Next Top Model.

Combining everything together, subject passes WP:ANYBIO, WP:ENT, WP:GNG and I can also make a case for WP:NACTOR. Darreg (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what nominator said, The subject of the article fails primary notability requirements such as WP:BASIC and also, the references/sources which are provided in the article are not of reliabe press, they do not discuss her significantly, and the few which attempt to do so, are not independent of her, hence we have a WP:COI which could distrupt NPOV so hereby failing WP:GNG woefully.

The Nigerian editor above @Darreg from history observed has troubles with being WP:CIVIL & following guidelines and polices. Example ; Talk:Eku Edewor#Notability of subject (The talk page of the subject of discussion) he exhibits traits in accordance with WP:NOTHERE. As he refuses to discuss with me as per WP:ENGAGE despite 3 whole attempts Furthermore, he is yet to produce sources that satisfy WP:GNG as (http://ynaija.com), (http://ecomium.ng), (http://friendite.com), infact all are not notable and reliable all but this one 2012 FAB Awards and this, is just but mentions, mere mentions of the subject and does not give signigicant coverage to the subject of our discuss. a delete !vote still stands, also let us take note of this: some of the unreliable sources he gives does not even substantiate what he says, this is really baffling .Celestina007 (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Celestina, you will never change. It is now clear to me that it is either you still haven't compehended the fundamental policies on Wikipedia or you are terribly acting in badfaith. The annoying part of these whole buhaha is that other editors fall in the trap of accepting your incompetency in the assumption of good faith, when in reality you're the one acting in bad faith. I mean after spending so many months here you are proudly displaying your ignorance in your understanding of WP:RS, WP:COI and WP:GNG. Please what does WP:COI have to do with this article? Who are you suggesting have a COI here? And how can a Nigerian not know Enconium Magazine, not to talk about calling it and YNaija unreliable sources? Infact, you've written so many words and made little sense, I don't know where to start countering them.

I put it to you that I haven't had any bad intent towards you during the buildup to this AFD. Yes I wanted you to nominate for deletion because I was getting sick of the incorrect tags (or should I say not-thoroughly-thought-out tags) you've been placing all over Wikipedia, and wanted you to slow down on them, but if you had just nominated the article as I suggested to you when I said I felt the tag was not appropraite things would have been alot different in terms of my perception of you on Wikipedia. I would have just seen you as an editor that still has some things to learn (I mean who doesn't?), but now I can't say I don't have a bias towards you from now on. You can ask Maheam, the moment he nominated the article, I thanked him for the edit, because that was the sensible thing to do when an uninvolved regualar editor removed the notability tag.

@Versace and @Mahveotm When Celestina is wrong about guideline and acting in bad faith as in this case, you should also correct her. I'm sure she will listen if it is coming from you. Don't allow her go about making regular editors lose their cool then you will now come in (or when she runs to you) and start forming human-right activist. And please advice her to spend time improving content and participating in AFD discussions instead of cleaning WP, she will learn alot of things that way. Darreg (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Darreg, i dont seem to comprehend your ideology nor thought process but please learn to edit the encylopedia in accordance with WP:CIVIL, That my !vote is a delete does not mean you should attack me this way.

Every now & again you seem to accuse me of incompetence but right here on my talk page User_Talk:Celestina007 #2017AMVCA you solicit my aid in the creation of the Ebele Okaro article if you thought i wasnt competent, why then would you assign me to do this bidding? It's a shame in your moments of anger rather than face the truth you resort to petty actions as making unfair and unjust statements. I wish you the best all the same. Have a nice week ahead.Celestina007 (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I have nothing against a delete vote, but it needs to be done properly. For example the nominator rationale is justifiable to an extent from his angle, and I can't fault him for that. I have enlightened him on why I think the article should be kept, it is left for him to counter my arguments with policy. That is what an AFD discussion is meant to do. But for the debate to be constructive I need to know that you know what you're saying. Darreg (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete two years on after the creation of this article and in-depth coverage of the subject can't be found. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to believe you have gone through all the references I provided above, but for emphasis, I will post some again. If these doesn't show significant coverage for a television personality and style icon in a third world country, then I wonder what does. And I haven't even started with the specific notability guidelines. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. ps: There is more online, virtually all Nigerian major newspapers have interviewed/covered her. Darreg (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darreg: I don't believe Q/A interviews are reliable since they are not independent of the subject. If Nigerian sources write a piece about her and decides to quote her, that would be considered reliable. I don't understand why Nigerian newspapers do not take this approach when describing notable people. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it was of recent Wikipedia editors started enforcing that rule for Nigerian articles. Some years ago, they usually allow it. I personally think they should be allowed if they are independent and many. I mean why should so many newspaper sites want to interview you if you were not potentially significant, even by WP standards. But I think most of our journalists are lazy, they don't want to be creative, Q and A seems easier than descriptive essay. Darreg (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the first point you made. There has never been a time Wikipedia was okay with just Q&A sources. Although primary sources can be included in an article, secondary sources are needed to establish a subject's notability. GNG isn't the only guideline that one can use to establish a subject's notability. A subject who was only discussed in Q&A sources can still be notable if he/she meets other guidelines specific to their field of work. I agree with the latter point you made. If a person wasn't significant, newspapers wouldn't make time to interview them. Nigerian journalists do need to step up their game. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found coverage of her in Vogue magazine, Vanguard newspaper (2014), Vanguard newspaper (2011), and P.M. News. According to the sources I've gathered, she hosted the 2014 edition of the notable Channel O Music Awards, the 2013 Miss Nigeria pageant, and the Elite Model Look Nigeria competition in 2010 and 2011. She's a regular host on Nigeria’s 53 Extra, an entertainment program Vogue described as being "along the lines of E! News or Access Hollywood". Vogue also stated that she "gained notoriety in 2007, after appearing on Britain's Next Top Model". She was profiled in South Africa's edition of Elle magazine, and covered the February issue of Genevieve magazine (a notable magazine in Nigeria). The photo shoot she did for ThisDay fashion magazine gained coverage due to its controversial nature. Moreover, she had a significant role in the notable 2013 film Flower Girl. She appears to be notable if you take all of this into account. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment in the establishment of notability for any giving article of living persons, significant coverage in reliable sources is required. Now, as per WP:INDEPTH the subject of our discussion seems to be lacking greatly here in the sense that even the good sources presented of recent do not with indepth discuss her. It is as though all just make mere announcements of her without speaking of anything really tangible. A delete !vote still is most feasible course of action.Celestina007 (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep (albeit weakly) per the sources and arguments of @Darreg and Versace1608:; a WP:BEFORE does indicate a degree of WP:PERSISTENT coverage. On another note, there does seem to be what might amount to WP:BLUDGEONing occuring here; so I will probably not watchlist this page. Cheers! — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per Nominator said, also a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources is yet to be found, from thorough research carried out my observation is ; the few reliable sources mentioning or discussing her are not independent of the subject hence we have a WP:NPOV at hand, for example; her workplace mentioning or putting articles about her(their staff) on cyberspace should not be considered as part of reliable source even though it is a reputable organization. Even at that she has not even been discussed with WP:INDEPTH Let this fact be committed to our minds.Celestina007 (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Darreg has provided sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Celestina Stop notifying editors 1 2 who have a history 1 2 of voting delete on similar articles to participate in this AFD. This behavior is not very different from Wikipedia:Canvassing, which is generally frowned at on Wikipedia. Darreg (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darreg: Mmmm, and your second example seems to imply that everyone who disagrees is a paid editor :D bizarre. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 23:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Subject of article is every now and again mentioned merely in passing & is never really discussed with significant coverage which are independent of her.I am however quite glad that whosoever closing this page could always look up our subject of discusion & make best judgement. Cheers Everyone! Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 25 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) 02:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Bierich[edit]

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

Puff piece article about Chief Financial Officer. Not notable. No refs. scope_creep (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no references, better delete Prof.Marlin (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The CEO of Robert Bosch GmbH, a billion-dollar company with 390,000 employees, got obituaries in Die Zeit[47], Der Tagesspiegel[48], the Hamburger Abendblatt[49]. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where is the reference in the article? scope_creep (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 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 Visakhapatnam#Cityscape. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin 03:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dayalnagar Colony[edit]

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

Its just a suburb of Visakhapatnam city and without any Relable Sources and hence not notable as per WP:Notability—IM3847 (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep no rationale provided for deletion. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a very small area, 27 acres and 196 houses. There could be an article if it met GNG. I found one source to confirm it exists [50]. The article can be expanded from this source, but it's still probably not enough for GNG. I don't quite understand the use of "colony" here and whether that would make this place "legally recognized" per WP:GEOLAND. MB 04:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Colony" should be considered a nonce word here, like "Park" or "Place". It doesn't mean that this was ever an independent colony. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathebada, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venkatraopet, Eluru and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narasimharao Pet for articles that are Neighbourhoods of a city.

Redirect to Visakhapatnam#Cityscape per WP:ATD-R. Might not be notable on its own but can easily be redirected instead of deleted. Regards So Why 16:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Timpani. Any editor may create a suitable disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) f e minist 15:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tympani[edit]

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

Can't find any valid references to show this actually exists. SPA editor added a link to EB, which doesn't mention this. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at least the revisions relating to the purported bone in the skull. Preferably, the redirect to Timpani that had been in place since 2003 should be restored, as nearly everything I've found about "tympani" is referring to the instrument (with nothing at all about the bone), but given that attempts to revert to the redirect were themselves reverted, that might require protection. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Timpani. I've found a bit more than Quidditch (more if you use quote marks on GBooks) but it all has to do with tensor tympani and chorda tympani. Maybe we could have a disamb for "tympani" but don't think that's really necessary. Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nice work Kingoflettuce I was searching for a bone of this name, this obviously precluded any results about muscles. In light of what you found, I would recommend a dab page, which would include both of the muscles you found, as well as a mention of the musical instrument with the different spelling. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We do have an article Tympanic part of the temporal bone and a redirect to that titled Tympanic bone. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:10, 26 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. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SiteHawk[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete -- sourced to non RS for notability & WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:GNG. A Bloomberg company profile isn't enough for an article, and the other two articles are only a trivial mention of SiteHawk. --Hirsutism (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Listings and local small-business awards are insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH and my searches are not finding better than routine announcements. AllyD (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing significant Light2021 (talk) 19:10, 29 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. Unnecessary to let the rest of the relisting period play out. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endrit Braimllari[edit]

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

Possible WP:HOAX. No references to determine whether individual is member of parliament. No refs to prove he is a politician, member of LSI, Chairman of LRI. Current refs don't point to valid sites. scope_creep (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 13:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 13:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – quick Google search brings up articles from big Albanian newspapers like Tirana Observer, Koha Jonë and Gazeta Tema ([51], [52], [53], [54]). Google translation of one article proves he is a politician, head of LSI in Terana, etc. Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. — Quasar G. 15:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where is the refs in the article? scope_creep (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Scope creep: the state of references in the article is irrelevant. Deletion is not cleanup, and a WP:BEFORE check should have been carried out. — Quasar G. 16:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE was carried out. scope_creep (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: See also WP:NEXIST. Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kudos to Quasar G for doing what Scope Creep could have easily done -- not waste people's time. Cheers Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of sources available. I agree with Scope creep. Antonioatrylia (talk) 05:24, 25 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. Sandstein 12:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maghrebis in France[edit]

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

The page fully overlaps with Arabs in France and Berbers in France creating a somewhat confusing Maghrebis group, which is quite anachronistic (Maghreb is the name for Islamic North Africa during the Middle Ages, and now mainly refers to Morocco). Furthermore, Maghrebis discusses Arabized Berber, whereas Maghrebis in France refers in the lead to Arabs AND Berbers. Note, that in parallel there is an ongoing discussion to merge Arabized Berber and Maghrebis GreyShark (dibra) 19:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 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 Nuttin' Nyce. czar 22:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"In My Nature"[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced "article" (actually just an infobox and a "chart performance" table, with no actual text attached) about a song. As always, songs do not get an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NSONGS just because they exist -- and while the chart performance table claims that the song peaked #83 in Billboard, that is not high enough a chart position to earn it a freebie in the absence of any reliable source coverage (or, again, any actual content) about the song. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to In My Nature and redirect to Nuttin' Nyce. If all there is for this is the chart position, it's listed and sourced there. A stand-alone article is unnecessary. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nuttin' Nyce. --Lockley (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nuttin' Nyce. per the above 2 comments. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:47, 24 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 number of sources were presented, but failed to convince other participants in this discussion that WP:N was met. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Traveler[edit]

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

Seemingly NN magazine. Failed numerous CSDs for G11 and A7 for strange reasons. Toddst1 (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom fails GNG Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has coverage [55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64]. - TheMagnificentist 20:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per TheMagnificentist. The first two links aren't relevant at all, but the others are ok. --Hirsutism (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very little coverage from reliable sources. Most links provided by TheMagnificentist aren't reliable, barely mention Elite Traveler, or aren't about Elite Traveler at all. Cjhard (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as naked advertising for a non-notable magazine. Thank you for the ten links; unfortunately the first two are completely off-topic, and the other eight refer to Elite Traveler's log-rolling promotional articles and press releases. Nothing encyclopedic here. --Lockley (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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