Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 June	28 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 redirect to Free trade. If there is anything worth merging over from this article into the target that isn't already there, it can be done so. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin 01:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free trade debate[edit]

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

This article is in horrible shape. It reads like a mish-mash of personal essays. The sourcing is severely lacking, with the bulk of the text being unsourced. Short of deleting most of the text and almost starting anew, the article is beyond repair. There is no reason why the debate over free trade cannot be included on the 'Free Trade' page, which gets more traffic and is far more comprehensive and substantive. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to free trade. There is nothing that could be here that couldn't be better covered, in greater context, in the main article on free trade or protectionism. We should probably avoid having these kind of "point/counterpoint" articles for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that they heighten the likelihood to make everything into a Crossfire-style mashup rather than an deliberative article that summarizes the evidence and array of scholarly sources on a point. Note that capital punishment debate redirects to capital punishment. Neutrality^talk 00:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article is a bit long and rambling. The is probably some useful information that can be salvage if the decision to delete the article is made. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a non-encyclopedic concoction; reads like a polemic of unknown purpose. Delete per WP:TNT. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There certainly is a debate on free trade, and it looks like the parent article is better than whatever this article is. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:23, 5 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) 22:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IPSP PHP (SDK)[edit]

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

Most of the sources given are to the website of the software in question, and the rest are to sites that don't pass Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. This is not enough to show that the topic meets the general notability guideline, and I couldn't find any other sources online. (Contested PROD.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:MANUAL for an unremarkable software. Not suitable for inclusion at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean WP:NOTMANUAL - WP:MANUAL redirects to Wikipedia's manual of style. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, and this is not an acronym encyclopedia. W Nowicki (talk) 22:40, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Landquake[edit]

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some decent third-party sources can be identified. The first deletion discussion offers little. If someone believes that some of the content should be kept, I am not completely opposed to a merge, assuming a suitable target can be found. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Josh. Currently only one paragraph of this seems verifiable in reliable third party sources with a non-significant coverage of one page of a book or less. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the name was applied for repainted toys, not characters who appeared in comics/cartoons. The character this toy was based on (Landmine) only receives one mention on the List of Transformers: Energon characters, and it's to credit a voice actor. There's no chance of this even being notable enough to add to a list. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:37, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Pakistan)[edit]

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

We already have List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network and so we don't need separate articles - Sources so far in the article are extremely poor and unfortunately I cannot find any better, Fails NOTTVGUIDE (to a certain extent) and GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 21:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have no idea what the last nomination was all about but it appeared to end up at AN for some bizarre reason, ~~Anyway this nomination is on the basis of it failing NOTTVGUIDE not NOTDIR although I see the logic in it failing both,~~ Anyway pinging Binksternet as they were the nominator, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close this one as "keep". My understanding of NOTDIR proved to be very far from general consensus. Binksternet (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't ... I really don't know what you expected .... You went to AN with the mindset of "lets enforce NOTDIR" ... that's pretty stupid by anyones standards, The correct procedure would've been to AFD them individually .... which is what everyone at AN suggested .... and is exactly what I'm doing now... so no ... this is anything but a keep!. –Davey2010^Talk 02:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per:

and pending the outcome of:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Russia and Southeastern Europe)

These articles serve as pointless content forks. Ajf773 (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically the same shows as what's on every other international version of Cartoon Network. No reason for a separate list, any more than you need a list for every affiliate of an American TV network. If there are any important differences I missed, and they're discussed in reliable sources, then mention it in the main article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:30, 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. So Why 09:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martina Violetta Jung[edit]

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

Article about a motivational business author. Books appear to be self-published. No independent, reliable sources giving more than trivial coverage to demonstrate enough notability for her own article. Guffydrawers (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD was not properly completed by the nominator, Guffydrawers (talk · contribs). I have fixed it and have no comment on the merits. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unreferenced BLP. No prejudice against keeping if sources can be find -- the article suggests the subject might be a noted newspaper columnist? But can't keep without those references. A Train^talk 19:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- promotionalism for a nn "leadership coach and speaker". K.e.coffman (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 07:05, 5 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) 22:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2espn[edit]

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

This is one of those 'this could be a sentence in a another article' articles which has outlived its purpose; it's about a texting short code to get scores and news from ESPN in the past. Now, it doesn't work (I tried the code; my shout disappeared into the ether, and is in fact now owned by Buca di Beppo, so you're not scoring anything but Italian food from it), and sports scores are just available from an app and Google and countless other sources on a phone. Only one source which has long expired and just redirects to a 'download the ESPN app' link, and no incoming links; like my past PROD for ESPN Now (a PPV barker channel), this is yet another ESPN service that lost its purpose and should have never been an article. Nate • (chatter) 21:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability shown. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Non-notable former service. WikiVirusC (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any references on this. The archive link in the article doesn't even work for me, but even if it did, primary sources aren't be sufficient. --Hirsutism (talk) 22:07, 4 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 04:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Star TV[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a TV guide, as per WP:NOT. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How is this page any different than the dozens of other "programs broadcast by..." lists? (i.e. List of programs broadcast by Disney XD, etc.) Or is the nominator intending to PROD all those as well? 136.159.160.5 (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Almost all of the programmes are non-notable as well. 18:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Merge to Star TV. The list appears to be of programs broadcast originally on Star TV. However, almost none of them are links. It's possible the page will be improved in the future, so the history should be kept. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY + WP:NOTTVGUIDE - to answer 136.159.160.5 - WP:Other stuff exists.
IMHO all these articles should be deleted, as they attract numerous unsourced and non-notable additions, often to promote the TV station. It may be better to have a centralized discussion, and then treat all the articles the same - although numerous similar articles - List of programs broadcast by Hum TV, List of programs broadcast by ARY Digital, List of programs broadcast by Geo TV and others, are also currently nominated for deletion. - Arjayay (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Struck my comment as per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN - Arjayay (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You should read WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. Not considered a good argument for deletion, and one that is contrary to policy. postdlf (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of articles on original broadcast content for a standard list of notable series by originating station/network; see Category:Star TV (Turkey) shows. Non-notable series can be removed if editors decide this should only focus on shows with articles rather than being comprehensive, but that's an issue for ordinary editing and discussion to sort out and if a fix is necessary clean up, not deletion. That's never even been attempted here. postdlf (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful as an index page if more articles are created on these shows, nearly all lists are directory style so WP:NOT is outdated in this regard Atlantic306 (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTDIR isn't outdated, it's just far narrower than the nom and others have noticed. It doesn't disfavor lists of TV shows generally, but instead specifies electronic program guides, which is clearly not what this list or others like it is. postdlf (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:06, 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. Based on the discussion, there does not seem to be enough discussion on "how objectivism manifests itself by country" to justify an article on it, and merely listing objectivist sources that discuss its occurrence in a given country is WP:NOR. Nothing mergeworthy so delete it is Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivism by country[edit]

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

Appears not to satisfy WP:GNG, and also appears to be promotional in nature. This reads as a combination of improper synthesis, original research, and unencyclopedic details supported by non-independent sources, mostly by the Ayn Rand Institute, whose mission is to promote objectivism around the world. At best this content should be merged into Objectivism (Ayn Rand). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Objectivist movement, which is the article that discusses the groups and people that spread this ideology. Movement activities in specific countries mostly seem not very notable (the exceptions have their own articles), and the relevant content could easily be included in the larger article about the movement. --RL0919 (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's material worth merging, but you're right, if we're going to merge, then Objectivist movement would be a better candidate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Objectivism is a worldview that has a worldwide following. Yes, in some countries, it may be very small, like merely a college club; however, in others, it has a notable following. I will edit this article to make it focused only on the countries that there is a notable following. That is the solution, not the deletion of the article. This article should exist in the same way that Christianity by country and Judaism by country exist. Michipedian (talk) 05:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity by country and Judaism by country are based on reliable, independent secondary sources. Objectivism by country is not. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant in-depth coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources; plagued by unavoidable WP:SYNTH issues. Any content that might fit here may fit within Objectivist movement or Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Neutrality^talk 19:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Arguably this article might be seen as a list of countries in which there is an Objectivist presence. If viewed that way, it does not seem to satisfy our notability criteria for lists, as I don't believe there are any reliable, independent secondary sources discussing these countries as a set. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about these?

- http://www.businessinsider.com/ayn-rand-interest-around-the-world-map-2016-4

- http://www.seiercapital.com/looking-deepen-understanding-objectivist-philosophy-ari-europe/

Michipedian (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first is just Google Trends search results for "ayn rand". Not about Objectivism. (Possibly the lamest "news" story I've ever seen, and does not it doesn't say anything about Objectivism. I have Ayn Rand on my bookshelf and have googled her before; that doesn't make me an Objectivist.) The second source is an Ayn Rand Institute press release; not independent. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will do my best to locate some sources as soon as possible. Michipedian (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article contains useful and important information not available elsewhere. KyZan (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)KyZan[reply]

If that's the case it would be a violation of WP:OR and that content should be removed. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inappropriate article with respect to both notability and OR. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How about these sources?

Czech Republic

- Kovanda, Lukáš. "Ayn Randová". Reflex.cz. Retrieved July 1, 2017.

This article from Reflex references Yaron Brook's visit to the Czech Republic to meet with leaders to discuss economic and political issues.

Israel

- Elis, Niv. "Ayn Rand-inspired start-up award debuts in Israel, but carries controversy". JPost.com. Retrieved July 1, 2017.

This article from The Jerusalem Post references the Ayn Rand Center Israel, its Israeli founder Boaz Arad, and its Atlas Award, presented annually at the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.

- "What Is Netanyahu Reading These Days? And What Might It Say About His Future Plans?". Haaretz.com. Retrieved July 1, 2017.

This article from Haaretz is about Benjamin Netanyahu reading John David Lewis, an Objectivist scholar.

New Zealand

- Hague, Eric. "Friday Fun:raising your kid Objectivist". TheStandard.org.nz. Retrieved July 1, 2017.

This article from The Standard, a New Zealand-based blog site, is about a man who is raising his child as an Objectivist.

- Perigo, Lindsay. "Lindsay Perigo: Diabolical Works Of Mother Teresa". Scoop.co.nz. Retrieved July 1, 2017..

This article from Scoop is by Lindsay Perigo, a New Zealand Objectivist, and references the New Zealand Objectivist website Objectivism.org.nz.

Poland

- Hawryluk, Gabriel. "Have you managed to defend capitalism?". NCzas.com. Retrieved July 1, 2017.

This article from Najwyższy Czas! references the Polish Objectivist website Obiektywizm.pl and their event at the Warsaw School of Economics.

United Kingdom

- Andrews, Kate. "Objectivism and modern society". AdamSmith.org. Retrieved July 1, 2017.

This article from the Adam Smith Institute references the Institute's Ayn Rand lecture.

I have more to come, but feedback on these would be good. Also, a general question: are websites like Meetup and Facebook that show the presence of Objectivist groups in certain areas considered reliable secondary sources? My assumption would be no, but I figured I would ask. Michipedian (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Intrigued by a comment above, I looked up 'how many Objectivsts are there?'. I learned that it's a deliberately structureless political philosophy with a small number of adherents and an unknown / uncountable number of "followers", if that's even the word. How do you verifiably source an article on the worldwide influence of a frame of mind? I don't think you can. --Lockley (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the term Objectivism in the article title refers to Objectivism as a formal movement, not as an ideology per se. Perhaps it would be better titled, "Objectivist movement by country". It is also neither structureless nor primarily political. I'm curious where you found that alleged information. Michipedian (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does Ayn Rand count as an authority? "I want, therefore, to make it emphatically clear that Objectivism is not an organized movement and is not to be regarded as such by anyone." From “A Statement of Policy,” The Objectivist, June 1968, p. 471. --Lockley (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's a good point. Perhaps 'formal movement' was the wrong terminology. 'Intellectual movement' might be better, but then that goes to your point, how does one measure that? I guess self-professed Objectivists and those who claim to be influenced by Rand would be one measure. The activities of the Ayn Rand Institute might be another. Michipedian (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Easy. You'd just need reliable sources discussing how this frame of mind / movement has spread across the world to the listed countries. But we don't have that, so this list of countries doesn't merit an article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about moving any content of worth in here to an "International" section on the Objectivist movement page? Michipedian (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. Just be sure to comply with our No original research policy and focus primarily on secondary sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Michipedian (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While we are having the conversation, we may want to address the existence of the three following articles: Objectivism in Canada, Objectivism in India, and Objectivism in the United States. I created the articles on Canada and the United States but not the one on India. I admit that I do not think that either the articles on Canada or the United States offers any information that is not or could not be included in Objectivist movement or the Ayn Rand Institute. I created those articles because I saw the article on India and figured that other articles should follow suit for other countries, but maybe the information in the India article should have just been condensed and combined into the Objectivist movement page, as well. Michipedian (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michipedian, thanks for pointing those out. I think they should both be deleted on the same grounds. (Objectivism in India appears to be different because the article cites secondary sources that discuss Objectivism in India.) If you don't object I will prod both articles so they don't have to go through the same discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am more so asking: why does Objectivism in India have its own article on it? Couldn't some of that information be consumed into an "International" section on the Objectivist movement page, as well? Some of the information on that page is only about Google search results. Michipedian (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say that the India article cites reliable, independent secondary sources that discuss Objectivism in India, but now that I look a bit into the sources I see that might not be the case. More analysis is needed to assess whether that article satisfies WP:GNG. If you want to keep discussing, this, I'm happy to do so at Talk:Objectivism in India. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR. DrStrauss talk 07:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced discussion of international Objectivism to Objectivist movement#International. No objection to Dr. Fleischman's PRODs. FourViolas (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice to redirecting at some point to an "International" section of Objectivism, once it exists. The sources identified by Michipedian identify that there are Objectivists in those countries, but they're not reliable articles that discuss any particularly distinctive national variants of objectivism in those countries. Merely having a grab-bag of "here is an article on Objectivism from Country X, and here is another article about Objectivism from Country Y", and putting that into an article of this form would be WP:SYNTH. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Delete for original research/synthesis and failing significant coverage, hence GNG, as well as failing Stand-alone lists, if viewed as a list. --Bejnar (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete satisfies with above discussion. No need for it.Light2021 (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Objectivism (Ayn Rand), to be followed by a merge and redirect with Objectivist movement. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{Ping|timtempleton}} What is there to merge given the low quality of the references, and what value is the redirect? --Bejnar (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: If there is a merge, the redirect needs to be retained in order to maintain attribution under the CC licence. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I see nothing appropriate to merge. Any data mined from the cited sources would have to be rewritten to fit the other article, so there is no CC license problem. --Bejnar (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G4, the other titles have already been salted, socks created/edited and removed the G4 tag on this. Also salting this title. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Professor of Art —SpacemanSpiff 00:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit, Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir[edit]

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

Re-creation under a different name of an article (Ankit Love) already the subject of two AfDs, most recently on 31 May 2017, a mere four weeks ago. Edwardx (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Comment. Is this page a candidate for WP:SPEEDY under WP:G4?. Previous discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankit Love (2nd nomination).

I did prod it with a G4 tag, but that was removed. I agree that going through another AfD discussion just 4 weeks later is a waste of time! Edwardx (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Delete. I see a lot of self-promotion and fact-proving in the citations, but little or nothing that independently demonstrates the notability needed to pass WP:BIO. Narky Blert (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per every delete comment from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankit Love (2nd nomination). Almost nothing has changed since then. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:25, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Lopez (Artist)[edit]

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

Self promotion ("having true talent and creativity at a very young age") and no reliable sources. Hirsutism (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not notable, and a rather promotional article. Noworks in major museums, no significant critical attention. Almost a A7 speedy. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC) .[reply]
Delete Note there was another artist called Carlos Lopez, born in Cuba and working in Michigan in the 1940s[2][3], and a Columbian, Carlos Lopez Ruiz, active in the US in the 1950s[4]. This new Carlos has some local press[5] but I'm not seeing enough to be notable at the moment. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing all criteria of WP:ARTIST. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The "don't delete" argument seems to be slightly more convincing than a "delete" case, but I don't see a clear cut consensus between "keep" or "merge"; I suggest that people start a merge discussion with alt-right Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alt-lite[edit]

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

Does not satisfy the relevant notability policy on neologisms, WP:NEO. This term has little usage by reliable sources, and arguably none in their own voices. Moreover none the sources even defines the term. It appears to be simply a put-down of a political group, and in that sense this article amounts to nothing more than an attack piece (similar to articles like Libtard, which has been deleted three times). I would suggest merging into Alt-right, but I don't think any of the current content is worth keeping. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:NOTDICT and WP:NEO. - GretLomborg (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a neologism, but one that gets defined and coverage from reliable sources. [6] [7][8][9][10][11][12]---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article may meet WP:V due to its coverage in reliable sources, but that's not the only bar it has to meet. It also needs to pass WP:NOT, which it clearly doesn't because its little more than a dictionary entry for a neologism (it fails the WP:NOTDICT and WP:NEO parts of WP:NOT). - GretLomborg (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The articles I linked above go well beyond just merely defining the term, but explaining how it plays into the dynamics of different segments of the alt-right, and would seem to meet the WP:WORDISSUBJECT requirements to have an article about a word. WP:NEO doesn't wholesale bar any neologisms, just those that do not get coverage in reliable sources, which this one clearly does get. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patar knight, could you please provide links to the sources you believe define "alt-lite" in their own voice? Merely using a term, or quoting someone using the term, is not the same as defining a term. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Nagle piece for one does so. Many others do so as well.[13][14][15][16] All of the sources in my previous comment use the term in the context of explaining the friction between different alt-right groups, which helps create an encyclopedic basis for an article. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Nagle source is opinion and not reliable, but I agree that some of those sources include (somewhat conflicting) definitions of the term. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many but not all opinion pieces are ipso facto unreliable. In this case, Nagle is a communication Phd and the author of a book on the alt-right, and not just a rando columnist. [17][18] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:24, 29 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) 03:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think covering this neologism is in keeping with what Wikipedia is about. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively and Redirect to alt-right. There's some coverage, but it's entirely within the context of the alt-right (and, of course, the term itself is based on it). WP:NOPAGE. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The alt-lite and alt-right are two different ideologies which share some platforms with each other and have completely parallel views on others. Having two different articles would be beneficial for users.

Although, the current state of the article needs alot of work. --Justforthefun17 (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to alt-right. This term can easily be covered by a section on the alt-right article. It is an offshoot which is understood in relation to the larger alt-right movement, so there is no need for a separate article. The alt-right article itself still needs plenty of work to cover this material properly, so this sort of content should remain there while it grows. Bigdan201 (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article says it is a term used by members of the alt-right to describe people they think are not sufficiently alt-right. It is not apparently a term used in mainstream sources to describe a distinct group. Its usage can be mentioned in the alt-right article and there is no reason for a separate article. TFD (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to alt-right, but I don't think there's too much we could really say about this particular term beyond a few sentences or a short paragraph. I've checked the sources provided by Patar knight, but I am still unsure how much substantial coverage exists on this phenomenon. As it stands, a stand-alone article is clearly unsuitable. GAB^gab 22:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Term is being used more and more by many mainstream reliable sources (American Thinker, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, just to name a few). It is a separate ideology from the alt-right and thus should not be merged. 2602:301:772D:62D0:79C9:EF93:3212:49B1 (talk) 23:07, 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. So Why 09:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Partnership brokering[edit]

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

This article does not appear to be about what independent reliable sources have written about the concept, but is the author's own ideas. It appears to be similar to a lecture for a business methodology, and has a "cheerleading" tone to it.

Google search does show that companies are promoting the concept, but no one has written neutrally about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article, in my opinion, has two problems. The first is notability. The second is tone. The first, the lack of notability, is the reason that I am proposing deletion. The concept has not been written about neutrally by reliable sources, such as business magazines. The second problem is that the tone of the article is promotional, advocating a particular way of doing business, rather than describing it neutrally. The article will require a substantial rewrite to be encyclopedic if it passes notability and is kept. If it doesn't pass notability, it doesn't need rewriting. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for the additional guidance Robert McClenon. Re NOTABILITY: The partnership brokering paradigm is a pioneering new concept, so there will not yet be major endorsements e.g. by business magazines. However, the term partnership broking or partnership broker has been noted and referred to in other relevant sources such as: The International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF), a UK based NGO, publishing ‘The Brokering Guidebook: Navigating Effective Sustainable Development Partnerships’; UN System Staff College and IBLF publication ‘The Guiding Hand: Brokering Partnerships for Sustainable Development’; UN Industrial Development Organisation publication ‘UNIDO Business Partnerships for Industrial Development’; Publications from the Donor Committee for Enterprise Development ‘Engaging with private sector through multi-stakeholder platforms’ and ‘How donors can make the transition to strategic private sector engagement’. Re NEUTRAL TONE: Working on improving the tone of the article. Please watch the space for edits. PBA18 (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since it is admitted to be "pioneering new concept," it is not yet suitable for an article. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on user DGG argument Partnership brokering as a paradigm is being adopted by many people working in the field of multi-stakeholder partnerships. The fact that it is fairly new is not necessarily undermining its significance and validity as a concept for managing complex collaboration processes. Many sources are listed referencing the conceptual frameworks that underpin and inform ‘partnership brokering’, citing ‘partnership brokering’ as a concept, and sharing insights from practitioners who already adopted this approach. PBA18 (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:ADVOCACY; reads like a personal essay or project, even asking the readers: "Why is partnership brokering necessary?" No value to the project. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original thoughts. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. While it's clear that this should not be kept, redirecting is slightly more convincing than not. Per this discussion, I have also protected said redirect. Protection reduction can be requested at WP:RFPP without asking me first if and when this becomes a viable stand-alone topic. So Why 07:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination threats against Donald Trump[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:OR. Article about non-noteworthy public comments wrongly classified as threats in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:V. The article is a hodgepodge of news reports, a few of which are already covered in other articles and most of which are ephemeral. - Mr X 17:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - This is unnecessary. It has already been delete. See WP:G4. I have tagged it for speedy deletion. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Assistance requested here: WP:ANI#Special goggles needed.- Mr X 20:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per above. If that doesn’t work, no one in the article has actually been arrested for attempting an assassination. In the only case that could be considered an attempt, the guy pled to being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm and disrupting an official function. The entire celebrity section is obviously just a bunch of folks with bad taste and could be deleted without deleting the article, leaving nothing but tweets which should also be deleted, leaving us with: WP:A3 Objective3000 (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would prefer merging Attempted assassination of Donald Trump into this article. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:53, 27 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) 21:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was about to say that in my opinion, the version before it was recently pruned was substantially similar to the version deleted last August 2016. Not exactly the same, of course, but a list consisting of Sandford and a bunch (overlapping but not identical) of celebrity "threats". But User:KrakatoaKatie commented at ANI with a different opinion, so WP:CSD#G4 should be taken off the table. I will say that the only reasonable content of the page at this time is as a redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Which could be done without an AFD, but we're here now, so I won't do that right now either. This page should certainly be expanded beyond a redirect if there is another such attempt (or credible threat), patterned on the similar pages for Bush, Obama, etc. But right now there's nothing here that isn't in Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the pruned version, and I didn't go through each revision. As you said, we're here anyway, so let's go through this and maybe get it salted for a while (hopefully for good, because I'm firmly anti-assassination). Katie^talk 22:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only text here is a replication of Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. It should also be noted that the subject in the article isn't a threat, but was an attempt, which is different. - SchroCat (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Occurs to me that naming quite a few people and making claims that they have made threats of death would appear to be a BLP vio, and should require quick action. Objective3000 (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In order to have an article, there must be sources about it, that is, articles about the "assassination threats," rather than articles about specific incidents. Suggest salting the article so that it cannot be recreated a four time without consensus. TFD (talk) 03:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Many assassination attempts" - yeah, all one of them, which itself is highly dubious. Poor sourcing, lack of notability... get rid of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only content of this article duplicates the content of Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. No other "threats" have been reported. It could be created later, in line with Assassination threats against Barack Obama and several other presidents, if there later becomes actual notable content on the subject, but at this point there is none. Salting it until/unless that happens is probably a good idea. --MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. re "special goggles needed": This version actually contains significantly LESS content than previously deleted versions. The first version, back in 2016, actually cited some instances where people said something that the Secret Service looked into, although they weren't real "threats"; they were things like Glenn Beck saying something stupid on the air. Before the "pruning" of this article it contained different, but equally unimportant, pseudo-threats; they don't seem to have been dignified by a Secret Service investigation. --MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump – Article has been purged of everything else since its nomination, because they were apparently not considered serious threats, although they were well-sourced, but even if kept, aggregating them all was WP:SYNTH. The Kathy Griffin incident looks particularly disgusting to me, but it was not a direct threat – at least it is adequately covered in her article. — JFG ^talk 22:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Also Salt. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above and protect the redirect indefinitely.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you could have an article on every leader in the world about this Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing worth keeping in this article. Threats towards politicians are unfortunately very common. Nothing stands out as exceptionally notable here. AusLondonder (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Only one attempted attack is notable and the so-called attempts that have been removed from this article were not even credible threats. Politrukki (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. It's the only one that merits discussion, so get the reader somewhere that they can find discussion of it. Smartyllama (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A lot of people hate Trump because of what he did, such as removing United States from Paris Climate Agreement, removing health care act, building a border wall with Mexico and making agressive military moves (including the missile strike in retaliation to chemical weapons attack in Syria) that may potentially lead to the outbreak of World War III, provoking a few the desire to kill him. This article can be expanded by incorporating the background (such as the reasons for past presidents being assassinated and brief info about Trump life in politics, presidental vote, and presidency), possible motivations and hypothetical aftermath and reactions (such as how the Russians and North Koreans would react if Trump was killed). Planet Star 19:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A significant percentage of assassination attempts are by people who are just plain nuts. Objective3000 (talk) 19:51, 4 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) 22:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poketo[edit]

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

Written like a promotional article. No significance or proof of encyclopedic notability. Light2021 (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO on an unremarkable private business. Article is filled with trivia and promotionalism, as in:

The name "Poketo" (pronounced poh-keh-toe), comes from the mispronunciation of the word "pocket" by Myung's grandmother.[1] Poketo promotes the work of international artists through collaborative designs and art events.[3] Poketo's wares are available internationally in boutiques, museums and their website.[4]

This content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. I've removed most of the article as it was puffery and/or unnecessary detail and a sneaky backdoor attempt to push the profiles of the founders (there was more written about them than the company). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:07, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MAYA Design[edit]

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

Whole article is nothing but a corporate spam, written like a brochure. It may be old, but does not establish any Wikipedia standards. Light2021 (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO. Corp spam, with copy such as "...MAYA helps companies design more usable and useful technology products, as well as information-rich services and environments." What does this even mean? :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Neither the provided references nor any sources from my searches rise above routine announcements. More is needed to demostrate that this is more than a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL firm going about its business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. While sources might qualify as "independent", the article themselves do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:58, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zooppa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Except the promoting like some brochure and working with big brands and tagging them in the encyclopedia nothing makes it closer to notable or significant. Previously Deleted with all votes and here it is written again. Light2021 (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO, with copy such as "...global social network for creative talent that partners with brands and agencies to launch user-generated advertising projects. " And it goes downhill from there. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:02, 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) 22:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refik Veseli[edit]

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

No independent references with regard to the individual. It isn't clear whether this is meant to be about an individual or a group, but it is written as a biography of a non-living person, whose notability isn't stated. Maybe a group article might be more appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I improved the article (still a stub, but a referenced one and better built). He has some notability as a photographer and work on Albanian monuments but his main claim to fame is WWII activities. He has at least 20+ book mentions as well as coverage by TIME, Washington Post, and other majors newspapers/magazines.Icewhiz (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are plenty reliable sources about him and his life that seem largely to stem from his WWII activities and being honored by Israel. I don't see a BIO1E problem, as the coverage includes other aspects of his life. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I'm seeing a lot of book results discussing his activities to aid Jews; sample: Resisting the Holocaust: Upstanders, Partisans, and Survivors. Can be developed into an acceptable start class article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 4 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 nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Steinmetz[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer who doesn't have the reliable source coverage needed to support it. He's been a past nominee for significant Canadian literary awards, so he'd certainly qualify for an article if it were sourced properly, but merely being an award nominee does not in and of itself exempt a writer from having to be sourced better than this: the referencing here consists of two primary sources and a Blogspot blog, and the depth of media coverage required to get him over WP:GNG just isn't out there anywhere else either. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can source the article better than this, but primary sources and blogs simply aren't good enough. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:AUTHOR #3, for This Great Escape, which was reviewed in the Toronto Star, Literary Review of Canada, Montreal Gazette, and Publishers Weekly, and attracted comment in other publications, and WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't just take your word for that, because when I Googled him two minutes before initiating this discussion virtually none of those claimed sources actually turned up at all — the Toronto Star was the only exception that I found, but is not enough all by itself. And because I'm the usual maintainer of our articles about both of the major literary awards that he was nominated for, he's already been on my radar as a potential article topic for years — meaning I've searched for references on him before, and found nowhere near enough to justify starting an article any of those times either. So, because your claims weren't borne out by my considerable WP:BEFORE work, I'd need you to actually show the evidence of those sources rather than just asserting their existence. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage and the City of Ottawa Book Award doesn't seem significant. SL93 (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that better sources have now been added to the article, so I'm withdrawing this. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 3 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) 22:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Rani Alsaboory[edit]

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

Recreation of Rani Alsaboory which was deleted WP:A7. This article was created by a sockpuppet of the editor who created the original, has no reliable sources and still fails to demonstrate notability. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Created by undisclosed paid editor in violation of Wikimedia Terms of Use and there is no evidence of notability from reliable independent sources. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nominator. In light of the previous deletion, we can remove the article as a G4, as well as a G5 if the checkuser tests come back positive. If both of these fail, there is no way that she is notable enough to satisfy GNGs.

Ivanvector - any chance I could have a link to the sockpuppet investigation, please? ↅ𝜞 _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 23:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GammaRadiator: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raju Adhikari. This doesn't qualify for G4 speedy deletion as there was no prior discussion, otherwise I would have deleted it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator as product of a sockpuppet. Quis separabit? 02:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as a non-notable person. Recreation of this article, after deletion, by a sockpuppet, and for money? Delete it two or three times if you can. --Lockley (talk) 05:51, 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 Procedural Close, as the redirect has been restored per consensus of the previous AFD. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madura Kulatunga[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Basically for the same reasons as the last two AfDs. Fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources seem to either be interviews or coverage of the product, not him personally. This is simply a recreation of a previously deleted article which doesn't address the issues that it was previously provided when it was deleted. Dan arndt (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article has been reverted back to the original redirect and therefore there is no need for the AFD to proceed. Dan arndt (talk) 13:20, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 08:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the Palace International Short Film Festival[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Also concerned that Wikipedia is being used for promotion, several WP:SPAs edited this page, including two with the title in their usernames. Boleyn (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the article exists since 2010, it is just being translated and its external sources improved. As it concernes a multicultural event very important in Bulgaria it should be on Wikipedia. There is no promotion of the event intended, just information. Please help in order to improve its reliability, there are many connections with europeans filmmakers and movies that have Wikipedia pages too. (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm never anxious to delete an article whose primary sources are non-English and therefore harder to turn up, but a survey of the references for this article are not encouraging. The only English-language reference does not mention the festival at all and the rest of the references appear to be from bot-generated content farms. I would change my position if references from a major Bulgarian news outlet like Trud could be turned up. A Train^talk 19:55, 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 Keep. The numbers would favor deletion, but the stronger policy-based arguments favor keeping. Clear passage of the GNG and ANYBIO guidelines is not trumped by the general assertion of promotionalism under WP:NOT. When the topic is clearly notable, as it is here (there were no serious arguments agaist that), and the article is not blatantly promotional, promotion can and should be handled by rewriting, rather than deletion. The sources listed by Colapeninsula are particularly telling. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Wight[edit]

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

Dubious notability;clear promotionalism WP is NOT A TABLOID. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional rather than encyclopedic. Previously deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engine group as a bundled article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator ......Sulaimandaud (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional. No objection to having it sent to drafts/AFC for significant rewrite to remove the overly promotional nature. Hasteur (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Recipient of the CVO, which has always been held to meet the requirements of WP:ANYBIO #1. The quality of the article is irrelevant to its notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In consideration of late dissent, if CVO status suggests notability, then what reliable sources support keeping this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 06:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plentiful in-depth sources which indicate his high reputation in his chosen field. Telegraph[19], Evening Standard[20], Campaign magazine[21][22], The Drum (less famous marketing magazine)[23], business books e.g.[24], plus lots of interviews and stuff about his charitable ventures[25] which show he's a prominent figure. And reviews of his first book.[26][27] I suspect there are more references from pre-internet days. I don't know about the CVO, which is the 3rd tier of one of several British orders of chivalry, and probably not everybody with it is truly notable, but he meets WP:GNG. The article could be expanded with content on his ideas/books, and there's quite a lot of biographical info in the links I provided. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I strongly disagree with Colapeninsula's suggestion that the article could be expanded (if anything this article needs to be hacked way back to the roots) but for what it's worth, here's a reference for the subject's award of the CVO, which is basically the only truly solid argument for keeping the article. A Train^talk 20:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a WP:PROMO page on a subject of marginal notability. WP:NOT is a policy, while WP:GNG is merely a suggestion. This article reads like it was written by someone with a close connection to the subject and appears to be a tribute page. Such content belongs on the subject's personal web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- However, WP:ANYBIO is a guideline, and he clearly passes that as recipient of the CVO! Given the endless numbers of one-hit-wonder minor celebs who have articles on Wikipedia, it is surely not unreasonable to expect someone considered important enough by the British establishment to receive the CVO (the third highest level of a five-tier order - usually fewer than twenty CVOs and considerably fewer than a dozen of the higher levels of the order are awarded every year) to have an article. He also, of course, has an entry in Who's Who. Or have we truly simply become a repository for fancruft on minor singers, sportspeople, soap actors and reality TV 'stars', but not people who have been significantly honoured for their contribution to their country (the CVO is five levels higher than the MBE, the common state honour for winners of a gold medal in the Olympics - we have articles on all those who compete in the Olympics, not just those who win a medal!)? And are we really okay with that? Because I for one am not. There is also considerable precedent for anyone awarded the CBE or higher (and the CVO is higher) to qualify for an article under WP:ANYBIO. In fact, I have never seen an article on a person with this level of honour deleted at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A guideline, such as ANYBIO, is a suggestion, while WP:NOT is a policy. Policy trumps guideline any time. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be if it met WP:NOT. Since it clearly doesn't and since AfD is about notability of the topic and not quality of the article (and receipt of a high state award from a major nation clearly indicates notability), that is utterly irrelevant. I notice all you do is once again quote WP:NOT without bothering to answer any of my points! You do know that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and not governed by unbending rules? -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Necrothesp. As a CVO holder the subject does appear to meet WP:ANYBIO. The concerns about the article's tone and cruftiness are entirely well-founded, but those would be appropriately addressed by taking a hatchet to the thing to excise the promotional stuff. (I did a double take when I first saw the entry and thought someone had brought Robin Wright to AFD. :) A Train^talk 19:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Promotional spam.Winged Blades^Godric 05:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly! And once again, AfD is about notability of the topic and not quality of the article. Starting to wonder why some editors don't seem to be aware of this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:20, 5 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) 22:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Osseon Therapeutics[edit]

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

Promotional, unsourced Carl Fredrik^talk 12:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article which has been tended by a sequence of WP:SPA accounts. The provided links are poor, predominantly press releases, and my searches are finding only more routine announcements about patents, corporate funding, etc. Enough to confirm this as a company going about its business, but I am not seeing the substantial coverage required for WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wondered why an article with so many edits still had no real substantial content- the main text is just 24 words in length. Looking through the history (as AllyD has already observed) there have been a sequence of SPAs tinkering with the page, adding multiple external links and a list of products to the infobox. There have been improvement tags on the page since a few days after it was created 6 years ago but the issues were never fixed. The Becker website link states that they are a "$14 million start-up company was launched by the University of Northern California". Searching for coverage of the company reveals a few press releases, but I didn't see any coverage that I would make me think that the WP:CORPDEPTH criteria had been met. Notability has not been established. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hospital trust[edit]

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

Out of date and misleading. Contains nothing which is not included in NHS trust Rathfelder (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not out of date, as hospital trusts still exist. Many of them are listed here.(And even if they were to cease to exist, they could still merit an article). Contrary to the nomination, it contains a good deal of information not in Hospital trust. What this article needs (I would entirely agree) is improvement. Where there are elements which need updating or expansion, by all means update or expand them.Smerus (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between hospital trusts and other NHS trusts is no longer meaningful. It certainly has no official standing. Most hospital trusts now provide community services and sometimes social care and primary care. Some provide mental health services. The NHS Trust Development Authority has been abolished. This article provides no useful information which is not duplicated or given better context in the NHS trust article.Rathfelder (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever they do, they exist - if they only provide the services as you describe, that should be in the article about them. That information is not,as you claim in the article NHS Trust. Both articles should therefore be updated.Smerus (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense do they exist? How are they defined and distinguished from other NHS Trusts?Rathfelder (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You claim "The distinction between hospital trusts and other NHS trusts is no longer meaningful." At some stage therefore even you concede that it has been meaningful. I am not an expert in the present NHS structure - but if something has existed, and there is evidence for it, it is in principle entitled to an article. If it has ceased to exist it should be explained how and why. No such explanation is included in the article NHS Trust - and unless and until it is, it is difficult to understand how the deletion of Hospital trust can be justified.Smerus (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When NHS trusts were introduced by the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 they were set up in five waves. The first waves only contained organisations which could have been considered to be hospital trusts - the biggest and most prestigious NHS organisations. At that time none of them ran community services, as far as I remember. But the plan was always that all NHS organisations should become NHS trusts, and eventually they all did. Hospital Trust was never an official category. And I don't think any of the Welsh trusts could properly have been described as hospital trusts. They all ran local community services. Now most of the big hospitals are running community services. This list you refer to [[28]] is out of date. But it doesn't suggest that "hospital trust" is an official or useful category.Rathfelder (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 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 redirect to Kingston Stockade FC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Kingston Stockade FC season[edit]

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

Season article for a club playing in a semi-professional league, so fails WP:NSEASONS. Prod was removed due to the WP:CRYSTAL rationale that "this article will be of relevance in the not too distant future". Also nominating 2016 Kingston Stockade FC season for the same reason. Number 5 7 12:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kingston Stockade FC, which WP:NSEASONS says is preferable to deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per Smartyllama. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 06:55, 3 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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tobacco Road FC[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable soccer team. Fourth division. I would like to take all these fourth division sides into consideration. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Fourth division is not the same in North America as UK or Europe. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth division is not the same in North America as UK; fully professional in UK. 10th level is notable there. PDL plays in larger stadiums in front of larger crowds than 10th level. Do the math. Nfitz (talk)

comment - I moved the content here from the previous discussion page. ansh 666 05:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still no coverage. Fourth division is an amateur league in North America and they do not play for the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup, the national cup, which is only contested for by clubs in Major League Soccer the North American Soccer League, and the United Soccer League. Their league, Premier Development League and the former league, National Premier Soccer League (no promotion or relegation between the leagues) are not involved. The team is not now nor has it been involved in the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The above comment by Walter Görlitz is a blatant falsehood as PDL clubs and NPSL clubs do participate in the U.S. Open Cup. If this team is arbitrarily non-notable, then the same should apply to every PDL and NPSL team on Wikipedia. Stop applying arbitrary standards to individual teams. Furthermore, Tobacco Road FC is certainly one of the more well-known fourth-division clubs in the Southeast. Also not sure why this article is being subjected to double-jeopardy as it was already approved to KEEP in previous voting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tobacco_Road_FC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schencktopus (talk • contribs) 20:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Schencktopus: Thank you for correcting me. 2017 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup qualification and 2017 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup. No Tobacco Road FC. Still a speedy delete as an amateur team. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Walter Görlitz: You're welcome. You seem to not know very much about this topic. Again, the entire PDL is made up of amateur teams. Why you are not applying your arbitrary standard to every team in the league is still a mystery. What's apparent is that you have a continued obsession with deleting only the Tobacco Road FC article. Schencktopus (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's on my watch list from the last deletion discussion. I watch all MLS, NASL and USL team articles and that leads to some interesting side projects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contrary to the ridiculous assertion above, PDL teams do compete in the US Open Cup. As such, they are notable. I agree this targeting of one specific team is disruptive and WP:POINT-y. Smartyllama (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- But this has not and it doesn't meet GNG and they are an amateur team. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plays at a high enough level. GiantSnowman 08:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- YOu're wrong. It both fails GNG and if it were in England, fourth division would be high enough, but in the US, they're paying out-of-pocket to play at this level with no attendance at games. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The team is part of the PDL which is sanctioned by the USASA that recognizes teams in the PDL as playing at a higher level than the USASA state association leagues. In addition, past, current and ongoing coverage by the The News & Observer, with daily circulation in excess of 120,000, Sports Illustrated and USA Today allow the team to meet the notability guidelines. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fail to see what has chanced since the clear keep decision in the other AFD a few months ago. The AFD nomination fails to provide any information not in the previous AFD discussion. Teams in this division consistently play in the national cup. Nfitz (talk) 10:06, 3 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) 22:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl McCants[edit]

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

Subject lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Page's current references are either press releases, primary sources, or only local coverage. Meatsgains (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 22:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. advertorial enough to be a valid 11, and i do not see any clear notability either . DGG ( talk ) 08:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:00, 27 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)} 10:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The opening reads 100% like a resume. Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion. No actual claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhakar Srinet[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant independent coverage in sources. - Mr X 17:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - GretLomborg (talk) 04:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 09:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG has acted in one non-notable movie in a supporting role, strong case for speedy deletion. FITINDIA 09:34, 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 00:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bhandarkunda Ledo[edit]

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

No evidence of significance, notability or even existence. The google refs only return the title of a government document but no content. The Hindu.com refs make no mention of the article title or even the individual words taken singly. Google searches yield nothing. This may be related to Ledo, Assam but the context is impossible to establish. An earlier PROD was removed by the author with no improvement to the refs. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - There is a village, Bhandarkunda,[29] in Gandey block of Giridih district, presumably this estate was at or near there. However, I don't find any sources on the estate, and the sources in the article are all indirect, so right now it fails WP:V. Offline sources may exist, and if they did, perhaps this would be notable. Generally, I think villages are found to be notable, but this is about the estate and the family of its landowners. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 08:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bhandarkunda Ledo or Bhandar Ledo Gadi was a zamindari estate with few villages, many tanks and private forests, which was permanently settled to Babu Shri Kena Ram Rai in an auction. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.29.65.161 (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bhandarkunda village and the Ledo village in Giridih district is the place around which this Zamindari estate was located. Many offlicial documents related to erstwhile zamindari estate do exists offline. Documents related to a civil suit that was filed at the district court back in 1920's clearly mentions about Babu Kena Ram Rai and his occupation as Zamindar of Bhandar Ledo Gadi. An online source can be found which mentions about this estate. [30].

I further think that the nomination for deletion was wrong, this discussion should close now and this page should continue to exist and improve with time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rai1112 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - these sources are simply mentions. They convey no notability at all. What is needed are independent reliable sources that discuss the subject, not simple listings. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should not be deleted

Above @vella said that there is no evidence of existence and when evidence was shown, she says it's a simple mention.There is no such thing as simple mention or compound mention. Use of adjectives can't change the meaning of mention. The place she googles and mentions about Ledo of Assam is far from where the erstwhile estate was located. @Smmurphy was right about the location and references to a number of offline references.

Suggest close discussion

The mention of the name of the estate, location, dynasty and title in the notable website [31] clearly proves the existence of this zamindari estate and Vella wrong.  — Preceding Rai1112 comment added by Rai1112 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the relevant notability criteria are found at WP:GEOFEAT. Since significant coverage by reliable third-party sources is lacking, notability is not shown. (I was not able to find any such coverage, either.) Besides, the main part of the article is not even about the estate but about individual members of the family, and if those paragraphs are removed, only the lede (which doesn't even claim notability, only that the estate exists) would remain. --bonadea contributions talk 19:06, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D100 Radio (New York City)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Article PRODDED as failing GNG no sources added after removal of PROD that could point towards notability. Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:NMEDIA Domdeparis (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:27, 27 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)} 08:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article added sources noting towards notability. 12:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnAndrrston (talk • contribs)

The sources added do not help to prove notability at all. 1 is a blog post on the profile of an anonymous member on a music web site and the other isn't even about the subject of the article. I think this looks like clutching at straws. Domdeparis (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Internet searches do not demonstrate in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing my vote now that this is a "bundled AFD" for two completely unrelated subjects. I object to anything being deleted under this flawed process. The two articles should be nominated for deletion separately. Citobun (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Reinstated vote as the bundled AFD has been rescinded. Citobun (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another reliable source. Should this be added? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/5-best-internet-radio-stations-every-music-fan-must_us_59297e5be4b07d848fdc040d

Huffpost contributors are notoriously not reliable sources they are often marketing companies disguised as bloggers and journalists. The contributor [32] who wrote this is realtively honest as she describes herself as "I am an entrepreneur and works with small businesses to promote them online." so no this is not a reliable source. Domdeparis (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. I completely object to this. What is not reliable with this article?

I object to this deletion, however I do agree with the HuffPost contributor page. This may be a marketing company.

OBJECT. Sammyjohn2810123

Bundled AFD I am nominating the following page for the same reasons

I object to this. The subjects are completely unrelated. Citobun (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My bad I should have look at it closer but I believe the 2 articles are candidates for deletion. I retire the bundle. Domdeparis (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also object. D100 is one of the best in the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshleySanzie49302 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC) — AshleySanzie49302 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I object as well. There also is no real reason why D100 is up for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveJohnson1 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC) — SteveJohnson1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep OBJECT. Sammyjohn2810123 — Sammyjohn2810123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep I agree with all of you. D100 should stay. TomStephens7 —Preceding undated comment added 14:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC) — TomStephens7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have relisted the swarm of WP:SPA keep !votes that may be the result of a WP:SOCKPUPPET farm or are at least WP:MEATPUPPETS as 2 of the accounts have been created with the sole purpose to !vote in this discussion. Please be advised that this serves no purpose whatsoever as the !votes will not be taken into account because this is not a vote but a discussion based on guidelines and policy. Please read WP:NOTVOTE before wasting your time in making a comment. Domdeparis (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're correct. We're actually normal people that created Wiki accounts for this sole purpose. We do not want to see D100 Radio get deleted. We do not care about these rules. Also, I think you're just doing this to get attention.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStephens7 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi if you really want the page to stay please read WP:GNG and WP:RS and look for reliable sources and then add them to the page because unfortunately just saying that you want it to stay is not enough. Domdeparis (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the dozens of fans coming who oppose will not count? BTW they have announced it over the air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStephens7 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, buddy. You’ve messed with the wrong fans. I would delete this whole witch hunt now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JinYang1892 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

KMF (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know what guys it's great to be a fan (a wrong or a right one for that matter) and it's great to think that your favourite radio station deserves its own Wikipedia page but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and all articles need to prove the notability of their subject and unfortunately this one doesn't. What is not great is to think that just because the radio station asks its fans to vote that it will change anything, it will have the opposite effect. If you really want you opinions to weigh in the balance learn a little about general notability guidelines and what is meant by a reliable source (I have added links to help you in the above discussion), look for the sources and add them to this discussion and the page. Domdeparis (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we will search, how long can this discussion be open? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JinYang1892 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seven days minimum Bearcat (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Internet radio stations do not get an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NMEDIA just for existing. They can certainly still get articles if they can be sourced over WP:GNG, but that's not what the sourcing here is doing: four of the six references are directory entries, and both of the the other two are glancing namechecks of its existence in articles that aren't about it on a user-generated content platform. Which means that all of exactly zero of the sources here count for anything at all toward properly demonstrating notability. Bearcat (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As already mentioned Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMEDIA. Did a search for them and isn’t a lot of articles on them NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 08:18, 3 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 Userfied to User:Kő Cloch/The Southampton Cup. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Southampton Cup[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This tournament is not notable, and the article is not supported by any third-party sources to suggest otherwise. There is no doubt that the tournament exists, but its notability has not been proven. – Pee Jay 08:09, 27 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)} 08:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable junior friendly tournament. Fenix down (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Mukiibi Nkaaga[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and subsequently WP:BIO. Bit part actor. scope_creep (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, double whammy, this article is also being speedied. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have no idea what to discuss about this one? Light2021 (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the three roles he is best known for (according to the article) the first is quite minor, and neither of the other two are as a principal character, (based on the description of the films here and in IMdB). DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is one of the most egregious cases of reference bombing I've seen in a while — 25 sources to support an article whose content consists entirely of a single sentence stating that the subject exists? Nothing here demonstrates a proper WP:NACTOR pass, needless to say. No prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can write it properly, but WP:TNT applies here — even if he can be shown to clear NACTOR, this would still not be the article. Bearcat (talk) 02:32, 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 and redirect to Symantec. So Why 08:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relicore[edit]

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

Delete and Redirect to Symantec. Unreferenced topic, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A better redirect target might be List of mergers and acquisitions by Symantec where it is mentioned, rather than Symantec where it is not. Bencherlite ^Talk 18:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect Light2021 (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apparently insignificant company and unreferenced article. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 21:26, 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 Electoral Commission (United Kingdom). assuggested DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elections UK[edit]

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

No working references. May not exist Rathfelder (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete as per nom. The website linked is clearly not notable; the article text appears to be mis-representing some UK election legislation. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Electoral Commission (United Kingdom). I can't find any references there to this organization, but this could be a plausible search term. Raymie (t • c) 07:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Raymie. Plausible search term for the Electoral Commission in the vein of Elections Canada. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or * Redirect to Electoral Commission (United Kingdom).Light2021 (talk) 19:22, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Manish Joshi[edit]

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

Vanity page for a gastroenterologist. Nothing more than a CV or résumé, with only primary sources that are either a CV or résumé. No substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources Mduvekot (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. The article only carries two primary sources that are not independent of the subject. There are many unsourced claims within the article. A search shows there are other individuals with this name but did not reveal reliable independent coverage of the medical doctor. Notability has not been established when judged against WP:BASIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The CV of a doctor who is senior consultant and head of department at a hospital: neither position is indicative of encyclopaedic notability and my searches are finding nothing better. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional piece. No encyclopedic value. I found a few passing mentions and clarifications for his hospitals but they don't satisfy WP:GNG. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:24, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Howrah-Balurghat Express[edit]

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

This article is about a scheduled train service which does meet notability. The two references in the article are simply train schedules and do not constitute significant coverage by independent reliable sources. My own searches simply turn up more copies of the train schedule. Whpq (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 07:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a notable transport service. Ajf773 (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 09:46, 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. So Why 08:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical brain preservation[edit]

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

Aldehyde fixation of brain tissue with the intent of future revival, while sometimes depicted in pop culture and sci-fi as "brains in jars", does not appear to be notable in reliable sources. Use of chemicals to change the structure of brain tissue to non-perishable material could be a line added to Cryonics provided WP:RS sources can be found. At present, sources cited in the article refer to techniques for brain tissue study, rather than rejuvenation. LuckyLouie (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Prefer Keep This topic look like a science fiction topic, rather than medical topic. But not unreliable. I think we need change the wording rather than delete the article. I suggest to revise the topic as follow: Chemical brain preservation is trying to use of chemical preservation method, such as Aldehyde fixation or other chemical fixation technique, with the aims for long term storage of a brain. Some (most transhumanist or cryonics enthusiasts) may seek for use chemical brain preservation technique to preserve the brain with the hope for future revival, and consider it as a potential technique for an alternative or adjunct to cryonics.138.19.127.80 (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that prove notability are still a problem. One article by the IEET isn't enough to justify a stand alone article. Could be a possible merge to Cryonics with a few lines added there about the topic. Another possible merge target is Fixation_(histology) but it might run afoul of WP:ONEWAY. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No weight of reliable sourcing for the topic of preserving brains "with the intent of future revival". Fringe nonsense. A sentence or two at one of our life preservation articles might be okay ... Alexbrn (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content (if there is anything of value) should be merged to Fixation (histology). My very best wishes (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Prefer Keep Article revised, please review whether we should keep the article. 45.64.242.199 (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just rewrite the article with no sources. Alexbrn (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page could be developed into something with additional sources like that, however as written this content should be deleted or merged. My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In my view, delicious braaains are better eaten fresh, anyway, but are there any more views about this topic's notability? Note that "delete and merge" as proposed above doesn't work for reasons of attribution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content fork because aldehyde fixation has been already described on the page about fixation [33]. But it can be kept and merged/redirected later - who cares? My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing worth preserving here. Basically WP:OR. jps (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But this article exists for more than 7 years and have numerous contributors. 45.64.243.6 (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unsurprisingly, things fall through the cracks here sometimes. jps (talk) 11:15, 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 Nanabhai Bhatt. So Why 07:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aadhi Raat Ke Baad[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This film had Ashok Kumar playing the lead role. The Times of India's archived editions can be accessed using Proquest. Someone with access to Proquest's Historical Newspapers Archive might help here. I'm sure TOI must have reviewed this feature. --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD anyone? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on Wikipedia should get an automatic pass. Any sources? SL93 (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no electronic coverage, but for a 1965 film that is not that unusual. Currently, I do not have access to ProQuest. However, important films are discussed in published books, coverage I also did not find, except for a mention in Screen World Publication presents National film award winners: 1953-1997, of which I am unable to obtain a copy to determine if it won awards or if it is just meentioned in passing. The snippet appears to be a passing mention, but who knows? I also found coverage of a song with that title (not from the film), and an essay that seems to be widely cited by S. Rashid Naim, “Aadhi Raat ke Baad [After Midnight],” in Nuclear Proliferation in South Asia. I note that while Ashok Kumar is notable, that does not make notable every film in which he starred. Notability is not inherited. --Bejnar (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can someone check the Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema? --Bejnar (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To address Bejnar's question
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 17:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - answered question I am informed that Aadhi Raat Ke Baad is not mentioned in the Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema. Also, a Google book search of Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema did not find any reference. I note that the filmographies of actors in that encyclopaedia are selective. I think that clenches the question of the possible notability of Aadhi Raat Ke Baad, unless someone finds more elsewhere. --Bejnar (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is always difficult assessing the notability of old foreign language films, namely because there is very little English electronic coverage unless they are internationally renowned works. Its director seems to have had a long career and its lead actor seems to have won a string of awards. On those grounds I suspect it is probably a notable film so in terms of notability I would give it a pass, but I don't have much confidence it will ever be anything more than a stub. It might be worth dropping a notice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force because they are better placed to assess its viability. Betty Logan (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A few movie books have mentioned this film.[34][35][36] In any case, there maybe issues with the scarcity of English sources, but film could be notable. Capitals00 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Directory listings and passing mention do not count toward notability. --Bejnar (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: Can you change your vote to redirect? I am ~~supporting~~ redirect to List of Bollywood films of 1965, because there is existence of the movie for sure, but we have not enough sources. We have to reach to some consensus here. Capitals00 (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that redirects are cheap, but they also encourage inexperienced editors to recreate articles. This is particularly true in the topic Bollywood films. I still think that delete is appropriate, and that there is relative consensus. It is not the number of sources, but what is said (or not said) in independent reliable sources. Existing blue links from the director and cast member can easily be piped to List of Bollywood films of 1965. --Bejnar (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. - TheMagnificentist 20:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm wary to relist this a fourth time but Capitals00's suggestion to redirect the article might benefit from further discussion per WP:ATD-R.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Still no reliable, verifiable references present in the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to its notable director Nanabhai Bhatt. Until someone comes up with the likely reviews from 52-years go to show WP:NTEMP as met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect to Nanabhai Bhatt. Per my comments above. Capitals00 (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion. This was probably heading for deletion anyway, but the matter is closed, because the article was a copyright infringement, as its content was almost all copied verbatim from http://zhangying.org/. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Ying (software engineer)[edit]

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

Only has two citations which are the website and resume of the person. WP:NN. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me) 07:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:32, 27 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)} 08:32, 27 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)} 08:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Perhaps she should be notable, but apparently she is not.- Mr X 12:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF - GretLomborg (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete Google Scholar profile doesn't show too many citations to justify an article. Probably WP:TOOSOON Timmyshin (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost an A7, unless one regards such honors as "Third Place, Univ. of Michigan CSE Graduate Student Honors Competition (Fall 2007" as indicating importance. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss. She first discovered ZMW attack (an article in wikipedia). She won several awards in Ericsson and Hewlett Packard, was reported as the "ten brightest researcher in mobile networks". She wrote a book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wenfeiwu (talk • contribs) 17:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wenfeiwu is a confirmed sockpuppet of the article's creator User:Fjzzhongyi. Both have been blocked. Timmyshin (talk) 09:40, 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 no consensus. So Why 07:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tisan Jeremiah Bako[edit]

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

subject fails WP:GNG, awards won are not enough to establish notability —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation for more citations would have been appropriate as he is notable and awards won are highly notable also (Ukrakpor (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Strong Delete what @Oluwa2Chainz: said & from observation, subject lacks significant coverage in reliable/sources.Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable OAP, passes SNG. He was not an award nominee, he won multiple notable awards. That is enough pass in my interpretation of guideline. Darreg (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darreg, kindly tell me how winning awards meets WP:GNG which primary states that 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? —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're misquoting me. I said "SNG", not "GNG". Those two are two very different things on Wikipedia. SNG is a colloquial term that refers to specific notability guideline, informally, it primarily define any other way of assessing notability other than the traditional "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". It is called "specific" because it is designed to gauge the notability of professionals in specific fields. The likes of NFOOTY, NAUTHOR, NCORP, NENT, NFILMS falls within this category. I'm surprised that I'm the first person to use SNG to you on Wikipedia though. With SNG, A subject doesn't necessarily need to be discussed significantly in reliable sources for it to be included on Wikipedia.

At the point of nomination and after I Googled the OAP, I knew the article will likely get deleted, but I was motivated to vote keep, because I want it to be on record that I remained consistent in my interpretation of policy. Darreg (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject of this article has not been discussed in significant coverage. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. This Vanguard source is a primary source and isn't independent of the subject. Awards and nominations are not enough to establish a subject's notability. There's not a single secondary source (online or in the article) that discusses the subject in detail. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep i think you ahould google Tisan Bako instead,Tisan Jeremiah bako is his real name and Tisan Bako is his Oap Name, notable OAP, passes SNG, google Tisan Bako again.. (Ukrakpor (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC))[reply]

You should read what WP:GNG documents about notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 10:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A Strong Delete !vote remains my stance on this and any editor who may think otherwise truly hasn't fully grasped the intricacy nor the true complexity of the nature of the WP:GNG guideline, even though it may seem easy to comprehend. The subject of our discussion lacks, as per WP:INDEPTH coverage in reliable press and merely even gets mentioned in both reliable & un-reliable sources, how does he even own a stand-alone article on the encylopedia? How was this page made maifest in the first instance? please for the sake of third party readers this article should be deleted in no time.Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Weak keep - Lack of coverage but he has won some awards. Should be good enough per WP:ANYBIO. - TheMagnificentist 15:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMagnificentist:, Additional criteria of GNG states that meeting one or more criteria such as ANYBIO does not guarantee that a subject should be included. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps weakly. The awards, and nominations (having 'received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times', suffice for the article subject to pass WP:ANYBIO. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep'~~ I don't think it's totally nice to relist an article more than once,kindly allow admin to take decisions on this ,The awards, and nominations (having 'received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times', suffice for the article subject to pass WP:ANYBIO. (Ukrakpor (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)).[reply]

Ukrakpor User:SoWhy is an admin and he is completely spot-on by relisting the discussion to generate clearer consensus, at least from my perspective. You can take this time to contribute to other Nigerian topics on Wikipedia pending when an admin closes the debate, hopefully, it will be inline with your argument. Welcome to Wikipedia, and congrats on your first article! Darreg (talk) 21:24, 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 in one form or another. Renames can be discussed elsewhere since there was no consensus here for that. So Why 07:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador of Iceland to East Germany[edit]

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

This is literally nothing but a list of six red-linked names; the obvious parent article East Germany–Iceland relations doesn't even exist, as it was deleted as an implausible redirect itself. PROD tag added, with the only change the non-existent East Germany–Iceland relations redirect changed to Germany–Iceland relations -- which ALSO doesn't exist, since it's merely a redirect to Foreign relations of Germany. Calton | Talk 15:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is another embassy-themed AfD. My view is that an ambassador is in such a high position of responsibility (and in this case, during a difficult and divisive period of history) that he carries bags of notability within a certain community. Many references for these ambassadors will not be on the Internet, and not be in English. By the way, Ambassador of Iceland to Germany also exists. - Richard Cavell (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. But given that Ambassador of Iceland to Germany is virtually identical to Ambassador of Iceland to East Germany -- this one a list of 14 names, 13 of them red-linked -- perhaps I should put THAT up for AFD. Unless you'd care to provide some evidence that random unrecorded ambassadors are inherently notable? --Calton | Talk 05:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AND it turns out the one blue-linked ambassador in Ambassador of Iceland to Germany (Helgi Pálson Briem) is essentially nothing but a bullet-pointed CV of his various postings. --Calton | Talk 05:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete there is no inherent notability of ambassadors..and similarly a list of non notable ones carries little weight either. If the role actually did something noteworthy perhaps. LibStar (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the ambassador to the Federal Republic article. The current way we display this information may not be optimal, but important diplomats are notable enough to at least keep a list of their names around. —Kusma (t·c) 19:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kusma Agathoclea (talk) 09:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid vote as WP:PERX. LibStar (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A list of ambassadors is perfectly encyclopedic. Nothing is gained by deleting this article. Srnec (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not we've had other ambassador lists deleted. WP:NOHARM is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That Wikipedia's coverage of diplomacy is poor is no reason to make it poorer. The red links can be removed if the persons are not notable. The article can be merged with Ambassador of Iceland to Germany if that makes sense. Ambassadors are high-ranking officials and it is perfectly reasonable to keep lists of them around. Srnec (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a nn group; does not meet WP:LISTN. Likewise, the article does not cite 3rd party sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename to Germany–Iceland relations, which is currently a redirect. Since this is not the German or Icelandic WP, it is not surprising that the bio-articles remain to be written. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 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) 00:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename is there an RfC on whether these ambassador-related pages should be considered notable? There do appear to be a large number of them. This page should probably be renamed to "List of Ambassadors from Iceland to East Germany" (and possibly a List of Icelandic Ambassadors would suffice), but I don't see a case to delete it. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect/merge per kusma. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC) edited 13:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you need to decide one not have a 3 way bet. LibStar (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While consensus seems to be clear that this is a notable topic, there is no agreement how to handle it, i.e. whether to keep, merge or redirect. Thus I'm relisting this again to achieve a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

?? If consensus is it's notable it would be kept. LibStar (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and rename to List of Ambassadors from Iceland to East Germany, as L3X1 suggested. Seems to pass NLIST. I'm not sure if the post itself is notable, but a list of its holders is. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:33, 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. So Why 07:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R.R Shinde[edit]

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

Per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Sources provided are't particularly reliable, nor could additional relatable sources be located. Several claims of "co-directing" several movies needs to be backed by reliable sources. Comatmebro (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seershika (talk) Hi Wikipedians, any update on this article please. Request you to review the provided information and help in getting the article published. A true work should never go to waste,please editors.

Below are the links where R.R shinde name has appeared either in the beginning titles or ending titles of the movies. The timings at which the name apppeared is also mentioned specifically for all the movies with the title "Assistant Director/Co- Director" on which there has been a source reliability issue.This is the main source where the name along with the title has appeared on the movies. There can be no other source much reliable than the below data provided.

^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] ^[9] ^[10] ^[11] ^[12]

Time:

Kaliyuga Pandavulu - Time:1:29 min Rakhwala - Time: 1:09 min Prema - Time:2:29 min Killer- Time:2:05 min Nirnayam - Time:8:08 min Gardish - Time:1:18 min Premante Idera - Time:0:48 min Suryavamsam - Time:2:24min

References

^ [1]
^ "Kaliyuga Pandavulu". Youtube.
^ "Rakhwala". Youtube.
^ "Prema". Youtube.
^ "Killer". Youtube.
^ "Nirnayam". Youtube.
^ "Gardish". Youtube.
^ "Rakshana". News article.
^ "Rakshana". IMDB.
^ "Rakshana". ibollytv.
^ "Premante Idera". Youtube.
^ "Suryavamsam". Youtube.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 10:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seershika (talk) Hi Wikipedians, the name of R.R shinde is available in the below links at the timings specificed. If any of wikpedians can go through the same, i guess we can find a much faster solution. The name and his role for the movies is clearly mentioned. Its the main source and not sure what's the issue.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Claims to demonstrate notability must be verifiable and the majority of these claimed credits are not. Since there isn't any sign of passing WP:GNG, there is no reason to keep. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 08:47, 4 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. The consensus is that it is too soon for a standalone article about this subject at this time. Mz7 (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2019 America's Cup[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON New Zealand is not a signatory of the agreement, and they are the challenger in the final, therefore there is no guarantee that 2019 and 2021 will have america's cup races. Grant Dalton (NZ team CEO) is even quoted as having said that the new agreement will be “null and void” if they clinch the title [37]. Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 America's Cup — Insert CleverPhrase Here 09:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete unlike the 2021 page, this one could be kept, it's likely enough the next America's Cup will be in 2019. However, it fails GNG due to the only content being (official) speculation. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or Move to Draft/User area Probably WP:TOOSOON but only just as likely to have info coming out possible in the near future. However as it is with no WP:RS fails WP:GNG. If Eivindgh wants best to move to draft, or their users space and they can update and re-post once real information is released. KylieTastic (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~or rename~~. Like elections, we could move this to Next America's Cup. But it seems that the next America's Cup is just as likely to be in 2020 or 2021 than in 2019. Definitely WP:TOOSOON. Mattlore (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 36th America's Cup now exists. This page could possibly be merged into that one. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: delete or merge per Power~enwiki's last !vote?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading the listed page, there's clearly no content that needs to be merged. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was going to say this. Also, the page name is not currently a viable redirect candidate either, so delete is really the only option. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 09:35, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Benhaim[edit]

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

BLP with primary sources, and sources on products. Like Zelfo, promo, COI, somewhat spammy. A coatrack with few RS for a BLP. Widefox; talk 08:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete looks like a blatant advert. Most of the sources are about the product and not the person. LibStar (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: -- fails WP:GNG; appears overly promotional in nature; more befitting an infomercial. Quis separabit? 02:39, 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 Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare. If and what exactly to merge can be discussed elsewhere if required So Why 07:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minister of Health, Labour, and Welfare[edit]

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

Just a sentence that belongs in the article on the ministry of the same name. No reason for this separate article. MB 03:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this type of content merger + redirect can often be done without filing an AfD discussion. There's no reason for a stand-alone article. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 03:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 03:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with cabinet of Japan Sulaimandaud (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This should be a list but the list was never added, and even with the list a separate page may not be necessary, unless it was decided that there should be a standard structure for these articles. Peter James (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge to where exactly?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare is the obvious merge target. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare. No obvious reason for having a separate standalone article. --DAJF (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; there's nothing to merge as the article lists no sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 5 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) 22:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debi hazelden[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NTRIATHLON. bojo | talk 01:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bojo, it might not fit WP:NTRIATHLON as it is an endurance world record that no one has completed before. 100 consecutive triathlons rather than just one. talk 01:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Self-promotion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as self-promotion. --Lockley (talk) 05:16, 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. So Why 07:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Rowley[edit]

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

Fails WP:NARTIST. Source says that this is his only piece of art, has only been an artist for a few years, cannot find any other sources that indicate awards or other notability Rogermx (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are other pieces in the Tempe/Mesa/Phoenix area including several local standpipes that have been tiled by Mr. Rowley and others. Having this entry allows local historians and scholars to know who is responsible for the massive 'The Tree' piece at the Phoenix Zoo. User:Bscolli —Preceding undated comment added 14:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia is not a storehouse of all knowledge for scholars or anyone else. However, it is possible that content about "The Tree" could be merged into the article about the zoo itself. Rogermx (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one source is not enough to pass GNG, and we need more than just local feel good coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:32, 4 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D. W. Clendenan[edit]

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

Biography of a person notable primarily as an early establisher and mayor of a small village that's since been subsumed as a city neighbourhood. This isn't sourced to any substantive coverage of him, but merely to namechecks of his existence in a community history book about the neighbourhood. While it's not impossible for people of purely local smalltown notability to get into Wikipedia, it does require significantly more sourceability than this — but there's just not a lot of improved sourcing to be had, because even in The Globe and Mail archive I get far more articles written by him than about him. And the fact that the article states a cause of death, but not a date, rather implies that this was based more on primary source archival documents (family letters?) rather than reliable source coverage — because if that information had been gleaned from a newspaper article, then even if that source hadn't included a specific death date we could still approximate one by virtue of the article's publication date. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 11 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) 00:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is so much just name checking we do not even have birth and death years for Clendenan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:30, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Micks[edit]

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

Self-sourced vanity page. I've cleaned it up quite a bit, removing spamlinks etc, but probably just another wannabee Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:28, 27 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)} 08:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:33, 27 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)} 08:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet GNG or WP:Music. It is a promo piece written by an "official" editor. While no longer purely G11, now, it remains promotional. promo puff piece for subject not meeting GNG .Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing coverage to meet GNG. GoldenRing (talk) 00:45, 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 Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7 by Ritchie333. Procedural close. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy of Errors (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination as 68.151.25.115 can not create AfDs, being an IP, and refuses to create an account. His/Her reasoning is "nothings changed from the previous afd: lack of wp:rs = lack of wp:n" [38]. I don't care one way or the other on this AfD. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:13, 27 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:34, 27 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)} 08:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:36, 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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darebin United SC[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 03:24, 27 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)} 08:39, 27 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)} 08:39, 27 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)} 08:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has vastly improved its content and referencing by deleting unimportant information and including inline citations. The club has rising profile and has attracted significant and regular coverage at community and national level by reliable independent sources. Examples of coverage include:

Featured a:rticle in national newspaper^[1]
Featured pieces by independent soccer websites^[2]
Regular mentions in local newspapers^[3]
Regular mentions in ethnic community newspapers (including nickname)^[4] 09:58, 29 June 2017 (AEDT)

References

^ http://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/the-long-road-to-ffa-cup-glory-starts-with-small-steps-20170303-gupvtj.html
^ http://footballchaos.com/index.php/component/content/article/70-news/the-man-in-the-stands/1089-the-man-at-the-canteen-darebinunited2?Itemid=615
^ http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/sport/curries-side-in-hot-form/news-story/3ac7bde9305be337ff4aca7a84bfa076
^ http://neoskosmos.com/news/en/node/49604

Keep Article has been vastly improved since nomination; at this point it's clear it passes WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do we go about closing the discussion and removing the notices on the article's entry? How do we know if we've reached consensus? 09:58, 30 June 2017 (AEDT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.225.18.10 (talk)

Uh? One article from a local paper has been added. How does that and the couple of paragraphs in The Sydney Morning Herald prove that the article passes WP:GNG? Hack (talk) 06:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the club does not have an exemplary amount of coverage but it still has enough to pass our standards. Also per the first keep !vote. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article in the Sydney Morning Herald was published nationally and was about the club's participation in the FFA Cup - a national competition. WP:N for soccer clubs is passed when they have played in a national cup^[1]. The article passes the standards to be kept. 21:19, 2 July 2017 (AEDT)

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Notability

Keep - meets our notability requirements. Giant Snowman 06:54, 3 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 List of regions in Faerûn. Mz7 (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dalelands[edit]

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

Notability is not established. The "reception" is trivial and probably doesn't really even belong in the first place. TTN (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as we do have one source to start with, or merge to List of regions in Faerûn. BOZ (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Forgotten Realms or another appropriate target. Yes, fansites mention this but I see no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:12, 27 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)} 08:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, unless some good third-party sources can be identified. As we have the list, that seems to be the appropriate place for it. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above editors. No independent notability, but info could be kept on the list article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:07, 4 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 List of Forgotten Realms nations. Consensus was to merge. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Narfell[edit]

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

Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms nations. BOZ (talk) 04:07, 27 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)} 08:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per BOZ. Only RS I found was to a paper about an online RPG on a server sharing this name, so... not the same place. Jclemens (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, unless some good third-party sources can be identified. As we have the list, that seems to be the appropriate place for it. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:58, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darryn Causby[edit]

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

Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a person notable as lord mayor of a local district, in a place where the position ceremonially rotates every year rather than being a directly elected executive position. This is not an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NPOL -- it wouldn't matter if the article were sourced well enough to clear the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our criteria for local officeholders, but ceremonial-rotation mayors are not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability on sourcing as limited as what's shown here: all that's here is one article about the end of his term, and one Proust-style questionnaire about such probing matters as his favourite film, his favourite book and his favourite way to relax. This is simply not substantive enough coverage to claim that he's passed NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP of a ceremonial mayor that does not come close to passing WP:NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 18:46, 11 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) 00:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD 20 14 02:43, 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. So Why 07:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wheels (2017 film)[edit]

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

Searches did not turn up anything to show this film meets WP:GNG, and certainly doesn't meet WP:NFILM. The article about the film's director was deleted as a result of this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donavon Warren. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This page should not be deleted because... (meets either the general notability guidelines, movie was in Theaters, Fandango:

Indiewire: Moviefone:Indyweek:Metacritic:Flixter:Movietickets: Also is for sale on Amazon, Itunes, Playstation, X-Box and for sale on online DVD/BLU-RAY - All major outlets) -- Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC) IMDB: — Film Fanatical10069 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete The above sources do not establish notability; they offer only very brief plot summaries and information about where it's on, with no critical comment or reporting. It does not meet WP:NFILM: no reviews by major critics (Rotten Tomatoes lists nothing and nobody has produced any); awards are minor; no other claim to historical importance or wide media coverage. Just being in a couple of theaters isn't grounds for notability. I'm surprised that a film apparently released in Los Angeles wasn't reviewed in any of the industry publications, but it wasn't. (NB: According to IMDb the film was made and premiered in 2014, so the date should be changed if the article is kept.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. Unfortunately, merely being released is not good enough for an article on Wikipedia. It needs to be reviewed by professional critics. Normally, for a film like this, you'd find reviews at IndieWire and Screen Anarchy, but there doesn't seem to be anything. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I found some articles. Broadway World:Worcester Herald:Daily Bruin:Cinematic Immunity:Lauren Julia: --Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2017

I admire your efforts... and these are better than earlier... but there's only one "keep" per customer. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article's editor improved article and provided new references. This movie has been shown in theaters and article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. Also, this movie is represented on the most popular movie portal on Runet. I think that it is argue to stay it and give editor an opportunity to adapt it to wiki requirements.Кость Лінивець (talk) 17:07, 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) 00:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD 20 14 02:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Broadwayworld.com and Worcesterherald.com are reliable sources for notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NFILM is met per available sources.. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} —Preceding undated comment added 11:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Squeaks by WP:NFP per significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources (multiple meaning two in this case): [39], [40]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 5 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) 22:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald R. Russell[edit]

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

Biography of a former mayor of a small town that's since been subsumed as a city neighbourhood. The sourcing here is not approaching the depth of reliable source coverage it would take to get him over the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our criteria for local officeholders; the only sources shown here are both from the website of the neighbourhood's local historical society, not media coverage. There's simply nothing here that confers an automatic entitlement to a Wikipedia article in the absence of the reliable sourcing needed to carry a WP:GNG pass. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 11 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) 00:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD 20 14 02:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG, and they certainly don't meet WP:NPOL.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:39, 4 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) 22:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marolyn Morrison[edit]

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a mayor, in a place not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on a mayor. She could certainly still get an article if she were sourced well enough to satisfy the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our criteria for local officeholders, but she isn't entitled to keep an unsourced article. As written, this just states that she exists, and then bulletpoints a pair of résumé sections for committees she served on and awards she won -- and none of the awards are notability-conferring ones either ("Ontario Crime Control Commission Award of Excellence"?) Simply put, this article shows neither the sourcing nor the substance needed to make her notable for Wikipedia purposes. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 11 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) 00:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD 20 14 02:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to draft space. At this point, there is not enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. There could be a claim that the subject, a mayor of Caledon, Ontario, population 53,000 (in 2017) may have sufficient sourcing to warrant an article. However, at this point, the only reliable sourcing is a lengthy article in Toronto Life that describes her battle against development within her city, and several pieces of local community news. I am not sure the article could be improved to meet WP:GNG from what I found, but there could be enough for an article with more research. --Enos733 (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only claim to notability is as former mayor of town of 60,000. Unreferenced BLP. --Lockley (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and they certainly don't meet WP:NPOL. Could have been prodded as an uncited blp.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was created before the cutoff date for unsourced-BLP prods, so no, it couldn't have been prodded. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 4 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) 22:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Higginson[edit]

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

Biography of a smalltown mayor and businessman, which neither makes nor sources any strong claim of encyclopedic notability. The "references" here are just contextlessly listed, rather than actually footnoting any of the content, and none of them are substantively about him: one is a general history of the entire region in which the town he was mayor is located in, which means he's namechecked in it and not its subject, and all of the others are primary sources which cannot be used to show notability: the diary of his cousin, the municipal council's archived minutes of its own meetings, a family genealogy, and the municipality's own website. All of which means that the sourcing isn't showing him as "the subject of significant press coverage", which is what's required for passage of WP:NPOL #2, and even the substance ("Vankleek Hill lighted by electricity last night. Great rejoicing.") isn't suggesting any reason why he could be considered more notable than the norm for a smalltown mayor. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 11 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) 00:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD 20 14 02:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My only disagreement with Bearcat's assessment of deletion is his discussion of lumping official town minutes and the municipality's website as primary sources that should not be used to show notability. Primary sources may be used to "make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts." In some cases, where a SNG affords the presumption of notability, a primary source showing the subject meets the criteria can establish a topic's notability. In this case, the subject fails WP:Politician and does is not "the subject of significant press coverage" to meet WP:GNG --Enos733 (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and they certainly don't meet WP:NPOL.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 07:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Thomas (politician)[edit]

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

Minimally sourced biography of a person notable as a smalltown mayor and non-winning candidate for higher office. Neither of these are claims that satisfy WP:NPOL in and of themselves -- he could still get an article as a mayor if he could actually be sourced over the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our criteria for local officeholders, but the sourcing shown here isn't doing that: apart from one obituary in a major newspaper immediately upon his death, the only other sources quoted here are deadlinked content in the town's local community weekly newspaper. There simply isn't enough sourcing here to give him an NPOL pass, and there's nothing here that would hand him a presumption of notability in the absence of adequate sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 11 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) 00:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD 20 14 02:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a lack of adequate sourcing for the article and fails WP:Politician. Most of the existing content comes from an obituary from the Toronto Star. No reliable sources are coming up about his work as a voice actor. --Enos733 (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe the sum of the parts of the biography of this individual are sufficient to meet GNG, even though they came out a loser in a race for parliament by six votes. This is a deceased individual, a historical figure, not the self-congratulatory Wikipedia campaign ad of a politician on the make. Therefore, the SNG high bar that we put up to hinder manipulation of WP by the campaign staffs of political types should not impede a normal consideration of GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would add that if many politicians decided to kill themselves to take maximum advantage of this relaxed approach to passing WP notability muster, I would have no objection. Carrite (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly zero of the parts in question confer an automatic presumption of notability on anybody in the absence of sufficient reliable source coverage to support them, regardless of whether the subject is alive or dead. And no, you can't take things that don't pass Wikipedia notability criteria in and of themselves and add them up to say that they add up to something like notability when taken in toto, if the sourcing still isn't actually there to support a WP:GNG pass. If he could be shown to pass NPOL #2 ("local political figures who have received significant press coverage") on the basis of having significantly more coverage than just one obituary, then that would be one thing — but the sourcing here simply isn't adequate to get him there. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and they certainly don't meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:33, 4 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 Whitevale, Ontario. So Why 07:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Truman P. White[edit]

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

Biography of a mayor, referenced only to a general community history book with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him. This is simply not enough sourcing to get him over the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our WP:NPOL criteria for local officeholders, and none of the article's content suggests any substantive reason why we could extend him a presumption of notability in the absence of better sourceability than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 11 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) 00:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD 20 14 02:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject settled in Whitevale, Ontario and the town was named after him. The town is now a hamlet (population appx. 250) wholly within the city limits of Pickering, Ontario. All of the existing sourcing on the subject is from one source - Wood, W.R. (1911). Past Years in Pickering. The community consensus about the notability of mayors includes both an evaluation of the city's population and type of government. In this case, the size of the jurisdiction is much smaller than what is accepted for the presumption of notability. Failing WP:Politician, the standard next is WP:GNG. In this case, the sourcing does not appear to be sufficient at this time to keep an article about the subject. There may be more coverage in the Toronto newspapers archives about the subject, but until then, the article should be deleted. --Enos733 (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the portions of this stub relevant to the history of Whitevale, Ontario into that short geo article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Whitevale, Ontario per Onel5969's suggestion although I don't see much that's appropriate to salvage. --Lockley (talk) 22:21, 4 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 Eighth Wonder. So Why 07:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Kensit[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking substantive support. Should be redirected to Eighth Wonder. reddogsix (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge to Eighth Wonder. Nothing there to suggest notability. Only significance from member of Eighth Wonder.Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
merge with Eighth Wonder, include this info under biography. Not enough to stand alone article. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 12 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) 00:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD 20 14 02:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The sources are very weak, and only mention Jamie an incidental manner. --Hirsutism (talk) 03:48, 5 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta (company)[edit]

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

no evidence for notability besides the usual newspapers reprinting the usual press releases. There is no reason why there could be expected to be any better sources, as nothing they do seems suitable for encyclopedic coverage. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another classic example of a COI/SEO expert thinking that we will allow Wikipedia to become an alternative to Yellow Pages or LinkedIn. Fails WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete--Typical PR and promotion.@Kvng:--What made you accept the AFC submission and later oppose the redirect by SwisterTwister?This's a school-book example of promotion and what not to accept at AFC!Winged Blades^Godric 10:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't know what you guys are looking at but I see coverage in 5 different reliable sources, 3 with bylines. Perhaps more balance would be welcome but the text does not have any WP:PEACOCK issues. Can someone supporting deletion please speak to this actual article as opposed to a class of articles you wish did not exist. ~Kvng (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng:--We are not opposed to any class odf articles!We are just strictly against expenditure of volunteer time and interests for business-promotion.And 62.29% acceptance rate is just mind-blowing!Please double-check before proceeding with the green button.Winged Blades^Godric 16:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's please talk about Zeta (company) here. Kindly visit my talk page for other issues.

Establishing notability requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. It is unclear from what DGG, Kudpung and you see as the problem as none of you have identified any specific WP:PROMOTIONAL language or discussed the citations with any specificity. ~Kvng (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per DGG "no evidence for notability" Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bhavin Turakhia is definitely covered almost by every media and Globally known Indian entrepreneur, as per Wikipedia policy, notable person and their company has every right to be here. If we go with deleting every company like this, 99% American or European company with less than 10% notability ground present here on Wikipedia will be deleted. Definitely Wikipedia is not a geography biased Encyclopedia. This one should be there on Notability and definite ground of standards adhere to Wikipedia. i have checked, verified and read huge amount of coverage on media. Wiki articles are there such as based on Founder background alone. All news coverage reads like Press release. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asana_(software) , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yammer and so many others. They all have grounds to sustain that standards. Light2021 (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the purpose of full disclosure, I came across this article while defending its AfC acceptance to Godric, I see why someone might argue GNG. I had not intended to comment on it, but on deeper examination of the sources, I felt the need to, After review the sourcing is the standard coverage you would find in business publications that is not an in-depth analysis of the company or coverage of its impact in the general purpose press. The articles cited are effectively press releases. I do not see the type of coverage envisioned by WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORG, and thus it is not sufficient to meet the GNG. Additionally, as written now, it is little more than a directory listing, and Wikipedia is not a directory. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: DGG has also assessed current coverage as press releases. I'm curious how this determination is made. These are not press release sites and not narrow trade publications. Three of the citations have bylines and that's what I normally use to distinguish actual coverage from press-release parroting.

Specifically which part of WP:NOTDIR do you think applies here? ~Kvng (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Business journalism frequently reprints talking points without much editorial oversight. A giveaway on this is the extensive use of quotes from founders or executives combined with short basic facts about the company. What you want is significant depth of coverage beyond: this is company X. Executive Y says this about it. It does Z. It costs P. The coverage I see doesn't go much beyond that. That type of coverage gives rise to articles that fail NOTDIR because they are little beyond a resource for conducting business. The article as it stands is an infobox that lists basic facts you would find in a community magazine or business journal, along with a listing of all its products, and a link to its website. Thats something I expect to see in a hotel room tourist brochure of companies in the area, not an encyclopedia article. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thats how every business news is covered. Time magazine to world'd biggest news agencies do that. it means every business article must be deleted. this arguments how its covered is highly questionable where the business and founder are well known globally. It might work for less prominent ones or new entrepreneurs looking for Press coverage. But the case is different here. Light2021 (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, you have failed to give an actionable criteria other than to consider all business journalists working from press releases to be unreliable. You have also not indicated which part of WP:NOTDIR we are running afoul of. Please indicate which numbered item you're concerned about. ~Kvng (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not how all business news is covered. You get in-depth coverage in Time with high editorial oversight. To simply say "well that's how business news works" makes my point for me: a significant portion of the business press does not meet our RS standards. I've already indicated what part of NOTDIR it runs afoul of: it is a simply listing of products and directory information. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself is not a listing of listing of products and directory information, it is a description of what the company does and how it got there. I'm going to assume that since you can't point to a specific item there, there is no specific part of WP:IINFO that is violated here. I'm also going to assume that your mind is made up on this and discussing it further will not be productive. ~Kvng (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already made the specific point above: it violates point 4 of WP:NOTDIR by being essentially a listing of products and dates with an infobox. You don't have to agree with that, but I have pointed to the specific point and explained how the article violates. This is in addition to not meeting the first half of WP:N by failing to meet the GNG when considered in light of the requirements of WP:ORG. In the current form and with the current sources, yes, my mind is made up: I do not believe there exists the depth of coverage necessary to either meet the GNG or to bring it into compliance with NOTDIR. If the sourcing does exist to do so, and the article is changed to be an encyclopedia article and not a stub with basic product details, I would reconsider my opinion. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any ground for discussion where you can prove that founders are some unknown entrepreneurs? they are at the level of one the biggest Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are. How many news you can say they are some PR stunt? every news paper wrote about them globally cant be just like that?Light2021 (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not every news organization on the planet writes like this. You would not find coverage like that in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, or Financial Times. As for the status of the founders: notability is not inherited. This actually helps explain why there are more fluff pieces out there: it is easier for him to place them and to hire marketing people to do that. We require substantial coverage in reliable sources, which has yet to be demonstrated. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oh! yes, you mean to say All the Americans are News and Indians News paper circulated to millions of people write only promotional content influenced by corporate marketing team. Such as Times of India, The Hindu, Indian Express all these news papers wants to cover their story because some PR paid them. if satisfies your knowledge go through some American Forbes or indepth coverage :

http://www.forbesindia.com/article/india-rich-list-2016/meet-the-technology-whiz-kids-bhavin-and-divyank-turakhia/44959/1
http://www.financialexpress.com/industry/entrepreneurship-is-boosting-indias-economy-but-significant-risks-and-fragilities-remains-same/689168/
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/banking/finance/zeta-partners-with-excelity-global/articleshow/59033152.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Light2021 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I missed your #4 response before. Doesn't seem to be a very applicable policy to AfD in general also doesn't seem to apply to the contents of this article specifically. I don't expect to be able to convince you otherwise. ~Kvng (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, this AfD has become too long. As to its applicability: WP:GNG is only one half of WP:N. The other half of the requirement is that the article must not fail WP:NOT. This article doesn't meet GNG, but even if it did, since we cannot produce more than a directory listing about it from current sourcing, it would not be considered notable under the notability guideline. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever been accused of having systemic bias against South Asia on WP before. In fact, if anything you can look at several of the discussions I have been involved in on Wikipedia and I think you will find that if anything, I have a bias towards being more cautious and towards inclusion for potentially notable articles from that region of the world. All that being said: the sources you provide either don't mention the subject at all, or are run of the mill and do read like a press release (The IT piece). I don't think we're going to agree on this, but I did want to respond since I had been accused of bias. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry TonyBallioni if I offended you by above remarks for being biased. It is fare to present our points. I have presented the articles for Startups by Globally Notable personalities. Else you can check I would be happy to nominate Indian or any other origin Startups If they are merely a PR stunts. Once again Sorry. Light2021 (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - fails WP:CORPDEPTH, the Business Line article actually states: In India, Zeta will employ a direct marketing and sales approach to promote its digital meal vouchers and well, it appears they've done just that using Wikipedia. Furthermore, Business Line states that Zeta was unveiled by Directi and "is now a digital meal voucher brand", so which is it, a company or a brand? Financial Express claims Zeta is a Fintech startup, so there are conflicting stories. The promos in the cited sources include basic press release announcements in the Business or Finance section, (PTI feed and Express news), so it's routine business and not about anything notable that garnered the attention of independent news articles. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC) ^{Sorry, my edit summary used auto-fill when I hit "d" for delete, so the summary is whacked.14:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

What is the conflict of story? Directi and founders are not some newbie in business looking for publicity in media, they are covered by major media globally because they are highly notable and recognized. Its not Run on mill startup business gets coverage on Techcrunch or media like Mashable and made place in wikipedia. Is there any ground for discussion where you can prove that founders are some unknown entrepreneurs? they are at the level of one the biggest Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are. How many news you can say they are some PR stunt? every news paper wrote about them globally cant be just like that? Light2021 (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Your logic here runs afoul of WP:AGF. Do you have any evidence that this article was written in bad faith by someone at the company? ~Kvng (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the coverage is routine: product and partnership news. No transformative analysis or indications of significance. Just a private company going about its business. This content can just as effectively be housed on the company's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - DGG, Winged Blades of Godric, and Kudpung hit the nail on the head. TonyBallioni's analysis is also spot on. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:29, 4 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 01:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AgileCat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable marketing agency. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up are either local or PR driven / non independent, not meeting WP:AUD & WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by Special:Contributions/ARosend with no other contributions outside this topic. Prior AfD closed as no consensus for lack of participation. Hopefully, this discussion can arrive at a consensus. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. I've removed some puffery and unsupported/unverified claims in the article (and note that some of the claims remaining are only supported by PR) -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:22, 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) 00:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD 20 14 02:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The page was originally created in 2008 by a WP:SPA working at the firm [41]. The awards for the firm do not appear notable, nor do local awards for its CEO which, even if notable, would not provide inherited notability for the firm. My searches are finding nothing to meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Previously just got saved because of no participation.Light2021 (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH. Newimpartial (talk) 10:15, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Authenticom, Inc.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private business. Significant RS coverage to meet WP:AUD & WP:CORPDEPTH not found. Sources include a non-independent corp directory in Bloomberg, DealerRefresh and / or passing mentions that do not establish notability. Previous AfD closed as "Keep" because the nomination was withdrawn, but the article is still unconvincing for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This company doesn't meet GN guidelines for a company. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Authenticom, Inc. page is a better candidate for Update instead of Deletion: the company is quite prominent in the news right now, and has even been recognized individually by Fmr. President Obama, & WI Gov. Walker. I will begin edits.Laccrosseed 14:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is good 'nuff. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment L3X1 Could you provide a link or two for references that meet the criteria for establishing notability? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wilco. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing Here ar some: Regarding lawsuit, 2, P. Obama praised it, lawsuit #2. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you L3X1, assuming the Dayton Daily News meets the criteria for establishing notability (which I believe it does with a circulation of 100,000 or so), the source in relation to the lawsuit is good. But in my opinion both of the Lacrosse Tribune articles fail WP:ORGIND. I also suspect that it is a local paper (low circulation) and therefore I would disregard it as a reliable source. We still need one more source (we need two different sources). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 22:15, 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) 00:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD 20 14 02:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – At this time. Sounds like a great company to work for. However, could find no significant references other than a local paper and two articles published by the Dayton Daily News in early May 2017, concerning the Federal Lawsuit ,brought by Authenticom, Inc. against Reynolds and CDK. Does this make the company notable? Sorry to say no. Thousands of Federal civil lawsuits are filed every year. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up the type of coverage needed to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep - I disagree with the sources however I'm essentially arguing with the consensus so am withdrawing, On a technicality she does pass NACTOR thus making the delete !vote moot but anyway closing as Speedy Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anisa Butt[edit]

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

I planned to source the article however Google doesn't bring much up and what it does bring up is mostly gossip/tabloid sources, IMHO fails TOOSOON, NACTOR & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 21:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:ACTOR & definitely too soon for an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:07, 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) 00:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD 20 14 02:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:NACTOR through avaiable wide coverage. Article needs work, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Most if not all of those sources are just trivial mentions and crap that doesn't remotely belong in this article, Bringing up a page that lists sources means nothing - We need individual links and ones that are reliable sources, Being in a couple of films isn't a pass to an article - Akk articles need to meet GNG or at the very least NBASIC. –Davey2010^Talk 13:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most? ? Really? How many do we need to meet WP:BIO? 2? 3? 4? No offense, but poor google-foo does not mean we give up, specially for a non-western topic. We do we have WP:SIGCOV in non-blog non-tabloid Times of India, The Hans India, Asian Age, International Business Times, Dispatch & Courier, Bollywood Life... and more... at least enough to at a minimum suggest that a temporary redirect under WP:ATD to Baat Bann Gayi is far better than a flat-out deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was gonna do a fly-by to say "I hear she's big in Italy." but decided that discretion was the better part of valor in that regard and was gonna it a miss... On a whim, I clicked the search link provided by MQSchmidt above. I encourage that everyone do that, it becomes quite obvious that this subject is a GNG pass owing to multiple substantial pieces of independent published coverage in sources of presumed reliability. Carrite (talk) 16:15, 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. Policy arguments indicate keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gut Muri[edit]

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

Very short article, could simply be included in the page Khuzestan Province. Jocke is the best!(Metalhead309) (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Legally recognized settlements are notable per WP:GEOLAND, and we don't merge settlement stubs. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:GEOLAND which states that all legally recognised communities, irrespective of size, are notable. AusLondonder (talk) 01:58, 4 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 Association for Computing Machinery#Conferences. czar 01:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing[edit]

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

I see no evidence that this series of conferences is notable. It is sponsored by the ACM, which is certainly notable, but not everything they sponsor can be expected to be notable also.

I can not find a source for the paragraph "ranking", which I presume is OR. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 27 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)} 08:47, 27 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)} 08:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. No independent evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect – To Association for Computing Machinery as the Symposium is now listed under Conferences’.ShoesssS ^Talk 12:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rates high in several conference ratings MSAR 2014 Network & Communications 6th of over 200; Qualis 2012 A1 rating; ERA 2010 A rating; Conference Rank (unknown) AREA: System Technology Category Rank 1 StrayBolt (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Association_for_Computing_Machinery#Conferences -- not notable for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 4 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 16:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Wickham[edit]

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

Vanity page created for non-notable position (US county administrator) Loopy30 (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Serving as a county supervisor is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself. He could still qualify for an article if enough media coverage could be shown to get him over #2 ("major local political figures who have received significant press coverage") — but three pieces of purely local coverage is not enough to do that, because every county supervisor in any county could always show three pieces of local media coverage. At this level of government, what's required is to show that he's significantly more notable than the norm for that level of office — but nothing here, neither in the substance nor in the sourcing, demonstrates that at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far below the level of sourcing required to meet NPOL or BLP. No compelling assertion of notability compared to the thousands of other county supervisors nationwide. If I read this information correctly, this fellow wasn't even elected by county voters, but was appointed when a previous officeholder died. BusterD (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Clearly does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:19, 4 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Andrews[edit]

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

Ugh, had to make a username.

The reason I propose this article for deletion is because the entire history stinks of sockpuppetry.

That is, it feels as if the artist themselves had a close connection with the creation of the page.

Many of the edit histories of the early contributors to this article suggests some form of corporatised approach to curation of wikipedia pages.

User:MarnetteD argued, and somewhat reasonably I guess, that it cannot be speedily deleted due to the sources. However, it is known that people can buy media articles, and I believe such an attitude can be extended to the purchase/directive-to-specific-people to create a wikipedia page.

I will let others assess the worthiness of this article. I will say I did not know who this person was prior to this page showing up on the recent edit log, and I was greatly disturbed to see that this page only exists due to the artist-in-question's willingness to expend their credit line to gain some recognition.

Comment I have formatted this discussion that was created by RandoUsername. No opinion on the article at this point. Huon (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's extremely little coverage in reliable secondary sources, not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Major parts of the article, including all the more recent information, are unreferenced. The closest the article comes to establishing notability is the single on the Adult/R&B chart, but I don't think that, in the absence of supporting media coverage, a single song on a minor Billboard sub-chart is enough to establish notability. Huon (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I’m very borderline on this. I’m not necessarily opposed to a subject creating their own page if it is written in a objective voice and there are strong sources to back it up. The nominator is 100% correct about the feebleness of these sources. Despite the perceived prestige of some of these landing pages (NME, MTV, Billboard, etc.) they are within the realm of “submit your content” type coverage that these entities provide for users. It is all trivial, press-releases, lists, and—yes—blatant self-promotional. I don’t see any significant, third party coverage. That said, a billboard charting single counts for something. It is a strong qualifier per WP:MUSIC guidelines--but not automatic. I disagree with editors who consider any criteria met as entitlement for an article. I strongly support the tenants of “may" be notable rather than “is” notable. As it stands right now a sole chart appearance is all this subject has going for it. If there was just one credible, independent example of coverage to add weight to this achievement, it would be just barely enough to get me to change my ivote to “Keep.” ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:50, 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.

[1] [1]

[2] "Kaliyuga Pandavulu". Youtube.

[3] "Rakhwala". Youtube.

[4] "Prema". Youtube.

[5] "Killer". Youtube.

[6] "Nirnayam". Youtube.

[7] "Gardish". Youtube.

[8] "Rakshana". News article.

[9] "Rakshana". IMDB.

[10] "Rakshana". ibollytv.

[11] "Premante Idera". Youtube.

[12] "Suryavamsam". Youtube.

[13] ttp://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/the-long-road-to-ffa-cup-glory-starts-with-small-steps-20170303-gupvtj.html

[14] ttp://footballchaos.com/index.php/component/content/article/70-news/the-man-in-the-stands/1089-the-man-at-the-canteen-darebinunited2?Itemid=615

[15] ttp://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/sport/curries-side-in-hot-form/news-story/3ac7bde9305be337ff4aca7a84bfa076

[16] ttp://neoskosmos.com/news/en/node/49604

[17] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Notability

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]