Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 June	29 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy Delete under A7 DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ExpenSys[edit]

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

In accordance with WP:DEL4. Also violates WP:GNG Coconut1002 (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for the above reasons. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. A blatant misuse of Wikipedia for corporate promotion. – Joe (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7.Light2021 (talk) 20:34, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghim Moh Bus Terminal[edit]

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

Non notable bus terminal, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 23:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, bus stations are not notable except in exceptional circumstances, and this does not meet that. Rrachet (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with above, not notable. MB 05:14, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Elephant (company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Rentier (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:PROMO on a minor tech startup. Even includes the company's mission statement: "EnergyElephant's mission is to help users "Make Better Energy Decisions" by organising and analysing their energy data!" Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Promo, tonal, and apparent COI issues aside, while there does seem to have been some coverage of the company (which has perhaps <20 employees?), it appears to have been relatively trivial in nature, otherwise self published, or "dressed up" and republished press-release materials. Is possibly simply a case of WP:TOOSOON. Guliolopez (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Coverage fails criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:05, 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. Consensus is that this passes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Scott[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Delete: as non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 22:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While her career involved lots of roles, it is not clear any were significant. One may have been significant, but the notability of that film is in question, and we need more than one notable production role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 01:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She had major roles in at least Journey to Shiloh, Simon, King of the Witches, and The Road West, thus meeting WP:NACTOR. There are some sources about her on Google Books and it certainly shouldn't be deleted without a search of newspaper archives. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes NACTOR, but also GNG. I did look through Newspaper archives, like Colapeninsula suggested and added some sources to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NACTOR (i draw the nom's and deleter's attention to "3.Has made unique, prolific (my emphasis) or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment") and WP:GNG, article reflects this.Coolabahapple (talk) 01:11, 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. postdlf (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of punk compilation albums[edit]

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

No sources, no clear inclusion criteria. Most of the listed entries are not notable. I see no reason why a genre should get its list of compilation albums when such a list would be vastly indiscriminate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Punk rock compilation albums. Furthermore, nearly all of the listed albums have their own standalone articles. The inclusion criteria seems very plain to me, it's a list of punk rock compilation albums, and it is not indiscriminate, in my view. Also, sources are available; I added one to the article to improve it. Lastly, this should be renamed to List of punk rock compilation albums. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia routinely classifies music by genre, and the vast majority of its sources also do so. The list contains enough notable albums for a standalone list, most of which can be clearly assigned to the punk genre (or subgenres of punk). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear inclusion criteria, pretty much every entry on the list has an article and per WP:CLN, the list goes hand-in-hand with the category for navigation. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Laughably incomplete, which is an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 04:25, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mufti Mohammad Abdul Rasheed khan naymi Fatehpuri[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, and WP:ANYBIO. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speedily: -- per above and, additionally, it must be noted that "subejct"'s article is completely unsourced, and of questionable historicity and unconfirmable purported accomplishments. Quis separabit? 02:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources evident. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Delete No sources to support the claim. performed WP:BEFORE found nothing. --Elton-Rodrigues 23:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Sophia Abrahão[edit]

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

This list is essentially the same as what is already contained in Sophia Abrahão, even though that article refers to this as the "main" article on the subject. No need for this duplication. One or the other should be removed. It seems that while very similar, neither is completely up-to-date - having just one list would improve maintenance. MB 22:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for BLP reasons for one, and remove the list within the main article for the same reason. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"'Merge'" with article on Sophia Abrahao. Vorbee (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article as an obvious content fork duplicating the same information in Sophia Abrahão. A merge might have been appropriate however a majority of the awards are so insignificant they are not worth mentioning. Ajf773 (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Wikipedia is not a fansite; cannot create separate lists of awards and nominations for every single actor/actress, etc. Quis separabit? 02:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom. What exactly to merge can be discussed elsewhere So Why 09:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British Consulate-General, Dallas[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable and consulates even less so. Most of the coverage centres around its closure LibStar (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom, which presently has no mention of this. This will serve to improve the merge target article, as per WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and add to the list per NA1000. Don't really see any need to merge the information present beyond that it is a diplomatic mission to the UK. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a former consulate of zero notability. AusLondonder (talk) 18:27, 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 consensus for a particular action has surfaced herein. I have interpreted the "meh" !votes as essentially being "neutral". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Ulmer[edit]

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

I'm not sure if he passes the average professor test. The article claims that he is known for "his work on abelian varieties over global function fields", but the references point to his own papers.

Nothing else in the article indicates notability. Rentier (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rentier (talk), I wrote the original article on Douglas Ulmer. However, subsequent editors have stripped the article of some of its meaningful content. I am adding new citations, and his notability will soon become evident again.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the "Scholar" suggested sources for Wikipedia writers, you can see over 140 listings for Douglas Ulmer in a fraction of a second.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mitzi - Google Scholar citations (specifically a measure called the h-index) can be helpful for measuring the impact of some academics, but that's generally not true for mathematicians. They make their impact through textbooks and other activity. Although Ulmer's journal publication list seems long, almost none of the articles are well-cited by his peers (which is to be expected for mathematicians). For some other ways that academics meet notability guidelines, see WP:PROF and especially the footnotes that go with each criterion there. I don't see any that are met right now. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject isn't notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you elaborate? SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Sure. The claim in the lede that the subject is "particularly known for his work on abelian varieties over global function fields" is OR; it's sourced only to the subject's publications. WP:NACADEMIC requires anyone passing for their published works has to be "demonstrated by independent reliable sources" and we don't have that here. I don't buy Xxanthippe's claim (poorly worded and hard to understand) about being highly cited. Mathematics isn't my field. PROF mentions that there should be reviews in " Mathematical Reviews, also known as MathSciNet, and Zentralblatt MATH". Where are those? Mitzi makes a WP:GHITS claim, which can be discounted. You've claimed that PROF rests on academics being highly cited (true) but how are we to know? Chris Troutman (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the poorly worded and hard to understand. I will try to do better in future. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Chris, you asked for an independent reliable source for his citations....and it's GoogleScholar, exactly where they can be found by anyone; therefore WP:PROF itself counts GoogleScholar acceptable given it's where you find such materials. Reviews are not a single qualifier, the citations itself can be and GoogleScholar itself will actually elaborate about when, who, etc. OR cannot be applied when the publications are laid out like this, it only would be if there were no sources at all available. SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mistaken. GoogleScholar shows his work has been cited. It does not prove he is "highly cited" nor does it prove what he is known for. Deriving claims like that from primary sources is OR. Show me a secondary source that says the subject is "highly cited" or that they are know for some particular study. Those citations aren't present in the article; just a lot of nonsense claims about the fact being true with no proof that it is. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

84 in a rarely cited field is itself significant for WP:PROF (that's how the field of scientific citations works) and since that's an independently operating Notability, nothing else is needed. "nonsense claims about the fact being true with no proof that it is" is inapplicable as long as it's sourced by facts. Since we would never say GoogleScholar is a primary source, it therefore is unacceptable to otherwise discount it. We would never ask an astronaut to otherwise give a secondary source about his firsthand space travels, so it's no different in here. SwisterTwister talk 23:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: "84 in a rarely cited field is itself significant" How am I to know that? PROF doesn't say any such thing. The rest of what you said was unintelligible. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. GS cites are 84, 30, 22, 18, 17, 16, 13, 13, ..... in a very low cited field; passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I began writing the article on Douglas Ulmer on 7 January 2017.

I see today, 6/29/2017, that another writer created a draft-- see Draft:Douglas Ulmer: Revision history-- on 21 December 2016, before mine but has not pursued it. Does that have any bearing on the deletion discussion?Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as publications are sufficient for WP:PROF which is the qualifying factor here, not GNG or any other standard guideline which hasn't applied to academics or education itself. As with WP:PROF, we consider his own papers, especially when shown to be highly cited, to be the significance. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I had a go at cleaning this up in April. This is how I left the article (yes, not very good, I know, I now wish I'd done better). Since then an awful lot of nonsense has been added back. If that is distracting people, the page could perhaps be reverted to that imperfect bare-bones version to allow us (me included) to concentrate on the important question, his notability. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply to comment – The short version is significantly less distracting, in my opinion, since the longer one we currently have is full of redundancies. For example, "The American Mathematical Society has three PDF mathematical publications for Doug Ulmer on its own website"—which points to a page of search-engine results, providing no new information beyond the fact that he has at least three journal publications. Being department chair and serving on the editorial board of a journal count towards notability, but the travelogue of lectures and subsequent publications does not, since the latter is just what all academics are expected to do. XOR'easter (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum – Another example of what I mean: "He lectured on elliptic curves over function fields at the 2009 Park City Math Institute, and the lectures are archived at the Cornell University Library." This read, at first, like the Park City Math Institute was an event at Cornell and the lectures had been videotaped, but no, the PCMI is in Utah, and "the lectures are archived at the Cornell University Library" just means that he posted his notes to the arXiv, which is hosted at Cornell. Everybody is on the arXiv! Likewise, a little later, notes that he wrote are said to be published "on the mathematics website of Stanford University", but this is really just a copy of another arXiv posting included on the reading list of a seminar course. The "Lectures, articles, editorial activity, and visiting professorships" section reads too much like PR written by an outsider to mathematics. This does not mean that Prof. Ulmer is undeserving of an article; he does seem to be pretty well cited in a lightly-cited field, as noted above. XOR'easter (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inexplicably, the current version doesn't include the information that he was a C.L.E. Moore Instructor at MIT, which is more notable than much of what is included. In case anyone wants to add an extra reference, he is listed in Marquis Who's Who [1]. Rentier (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This BLP has been much edited by an editor with an interesting edit history of deletion of several of the articles created. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

- - I searched the suggested reference sources for Wikipedia writers again this evening and found that Douglas Ulmer received a $60,000 grant from the National Science Foundation to pursue his research. I've added the information to the article. Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in the thoughts of DGG and Randykitty; in the meantime I have removed the kind of information about the kinds of things professors do (give lectures, published papers) that lacked secondary sourcing to indicate that one way or another this is worth mentioning. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article had some of the oddest sourcing for a BLP on an academic I've seen in a long time, and some of the weirdest claims. It said he supervised doctoral dissertations (that's what professors do at Ph.D. granting institutions...), which was verified by a link to a student's CV? That is not acceptable. I wonder what Justlettersandnumbers thinks about this article and this AfD; they've worked on it before. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment a little higher up this page, Drmies, now rendered redundant by the excellent clean-up you and others have recently done. When I edited this in April, I thought he was notable because of his citations – otherwise I'd have nominated it for deletion. Now I'm waiting to see the evaluations of those citations by other editors whose opinion I value before making my own decision.

Mitzi.humphrey, you've written extensively on topics where you have a conflict of interest – your husband, members of his family, an arts group you started and so on. Do you also have some personal or professional connection to Ulmer? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, Justlettersandnumbers, I do. But remember that commenting on other users is considered disruptive. I hope that this article ultimately succeeds in demonstrating the obvious notability of Dr. Ulmer in the field of mathematics.--Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is also considered disruptive not to declare a WP:COI where there is one. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Professors engaged in research do publish papers. That's what they do, and what they're supposed to do. If they do it to a notable degree as measured by the influence they have, they are notable. It's no more a reason for not recognizing their notability as it is to say that an artist paints pictures. In a low-citation density field like mathematics, the citation figures here are sufficient. I do not think the citations to the published papers should have been removed. Not only are they normal in articles in the area, they're essential. It's the citations to them that show him notable . But I will defer to David E if there's something missing here. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, DGG--I certainly do not leave such citations in, and I've written quite a few of these articles. Surely you agree that they can't be used to verify "person X is important in this or that area" (this edit)--and what was linked was arXiv, four times. Drmies (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - - We are obviously going to need some discussion, because I always add such material--I normally had the 3 highest cited as the most objective way to show the influence. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject has one article that has been cited more than a handful times. But like DGG I'd be interested to hear what David Eppstein has to say about this. --Randykitty (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It would be vaguely surprising to me if a person with an Erdős number of 2 (via Carl Pomerance, [2]) turned out to be non-notable, but it's certainly possible. XOR'easter (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: Does PROF say anything about Erdos numbers? No. Should it? I don't know. We go into AfD with the notability guidelines we have, not the ones we'd like to have or would wish to have had. (apologies to Don Rumsfeld) Chris Troutman (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: On the whole, I'd say that Erdős numbers are by themselves too much a curiosity to found real judgments upon. It would just seem be a touch odd to me if a person with a low Erdős number weren't independently notable on more solid grounds. XOR'easter (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: I know lots of people with EN=2 who are clearly not (yet) notable. I don't think that's much of a sign either way for this discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Now that I'm back at the office, I was able to look the subject up in MathSciNet. He has 27 publications reviewed there, with 3 more pending. This seems like a respectable amount, but I don't work in number theory, so I don't have the greatest sense of what is typical in that area. XOR'easter (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several people mentioned the subject's citation and publication counts, but it seems impossible to judge those without an intimate knowledge of the field. Is there a way to objectively quantify his impact relative to others in the area? Rentier (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. He has a full professorship at a good research university, which is both a sign of an already-successful academic career and usually within the range for which we keep articles on academics, but is not in itself a marker of automatic notability. Counting citations in pure mathematics is not very useful; they're too low to convey much information. I don't see any named chairs, society fellowships, major awards, widely used and reviewed books, festschrifts, or other things like that to confirm his notability. He does have one paper in Annals of Mathematics and three in Inventiones Mathematicae, both top journals — many other mathematicians would be jealous of such a record. And we can answer the nominator's complaint about primary referencing by using the MathSciNet reviews as references — they wouldn't say he is "known for" anything but at least they would say what he has accomplished. But in general, we have a large number of articles on good but not stellar mathematicians such as him, and I don't know why this one was singled out. I don't think this one is especially problematic for the encyclopedia — it's factual and sourced or sourceable, and he is after all a successful mathematician. But I can't find a hook to support a keep opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: I nominated this article because it seemed doubtful that he meets any of the notability criteria, as laid out by WP:GNG and WP:PROF, and I was curious what other people thought. I see from yours and DGG's comments that the inclusion criteria are more fluid than I thought, however the length of this discussion shows that this is a controversial topic. It would be good to have it resolved one way or another, since subjects of dubious notability dominate the BLPs I see in the New Pages Feed and it's generally hard to decide how to deal with them. Rentier (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"the inclusion criteria are more fluid than I thought" Not really. Some editors want it that way but not everyone agrees. Our criteria are for the most part pretty objective. You were right to nominate. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rentier: FWIW I think it's a completely reasonable nomination. If there's notability here, our article doesn't make it obvious. I just think there are many others who could and perhaps should be similarly nominated. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My research update as shown on the Flinn Foundation website: "Grant gives UA $3.5 million for math educators

October 24, 2006 [Source: Associated Press] — The National Science Foundation has awarded the University of Arizona a five-year, $3.5 million grant to improve the skills of would-be mathematics educators. It is UA’s second grant for the Vertical Integration of Research and Education program, one that will benefit students from high school classrooms to postdoctoral programs.

The first five-year NSF grant was $2.5 million in 1999. “The first helped create some programs and the second grant will make sure those changes are permanent and propagated throughout the region,” said Douglas Ulmer, who heads the math graduate program at UA. The funding means new fellowships for students, undergraduate research opportunities, collaborations, and interdisciplinary work with the hope of driving more students into the field."--Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That the paper quoted him does not notability make. Your conflict of interest blinds you to objective reality. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral As David Eppstein stated above, the presence of this article does not seem "especially problematic for the encyclopedia". If the unsourced statements were sourced or removed, I would not object to having it around. That said, I do not see a "silver bullet" that by itself would guarantee notability. XOR'easter (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meh for me too, per David Eppstein. I have no objection to the article (well, to a decent article that does not inflate, and does not substitute for a faculty page on the university server). Drmies (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlike in some other areas, we actually have proper criteria for notability of academics. This person seems to be right on the borderline of those, a fully competent person doing what professors do. But in the total absence of any in-depth coverage whatsoever, there's really no point in having an article on him. Unfortunately, unless he gets appointed to a named chair, we may need to wait until obituaries are written to have anything more substantial to say about him. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers (talk). I don't think that your assumption that we must wait for an obituary is well-founded. I realize that a deletion discussion is not supposed to be a vote, but since the Keep, Meh, and Neutral responses greatly outweigh the Delete responses, we cannot say that a consensus has been reached here.--Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comment above in one of the most point-on observations regarding notability:"as publications are sufficient for WP:PROF which is the qualifying factor here, not GNG or any other standard guideline which hasn't applied to academics or education itself. As with WP:PROF, we consider his own papers, especially when shown to be highly cited, to be the significance." I think all discussants here should review the history of the article and see where it went astray from my original article. Ulmer's articles, lectures, and mathematical treatises have been highly regarded and highly cited in his field. Otherwise, he could not have accomplished all that he has.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a tendency for those of us who have worked in an academic field to be more than usually skeptical about other people in our own area. I've seeb this for not just academics, but in the arts also--in the things we really know, we use higher standards. I know this to be true of myself in librarianship--many articles in the field I have listed in AfD or said delete for, have been kept. It's an interesting sort of inverse bias. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting observation and very true. I brought up the "average professor test" in this nomination because I think that roughly one third of the faculty in my department have a stronger record (as far as it makes any sense to make cross-field comparisons), yet none of them have articles — and I don't think they should, except maybe the top one or two. Rentier (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting remarks. If we know a field better, we're more critical. I think that's true for myself, too. We know our fields and who are the important people in it. Doesn't that suggest that our current criteria are perhaps a bit too lax? --Randykitty (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rentier, I similarly continue to have a dilemma about the expectations of the "average professor test" and determining which criteria make sense in cross-field comparisons. For example, WorldCat shows a book co-written by Douglas Ulmer which is in print in two different versions. Shouldn't that qualify as a viable publication reference regardless of one's field?Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, "4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education." The NSF grants administered by Ulmer for math students (shown higher on the thread) are a good example that this criterion is met.--Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He was one of eight investigators on a project for which we've seen no evidence of result. He did not author a math book used by thousands of students. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Mitzi.humphrey, I suggest you disengage. You have a declared conflict of your interest, your comments here look like they are coming from a promotional point of view (you appear to be looking for a way to interpret the notability criteria so they fit Ulmer's record, rather than neutrally measuring Ulmer's record against the criteria), and it is likely that this will push other editors to be more critical of Ulmer rather than changing their opinions in the way you want. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- reasonable achievements for a mathematician to sustain an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 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 regions in Faerûn. So Why 09:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thar (Forgotten Realms)[edit]

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of regions in Faerûn. BOZ (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, unless third-party sources are identified. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:50, 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. If someone wants to merge content later, leave me a message. So Why 09:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesis Prime[edit]

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

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some decent third-party sources can be identified. I would not be opposed to a merge if anyone feels that there is content that should be kept and an appropriate target can be identified. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm usually for merging these TF characters, but there doesn't seem to be a good target for this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:16, 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 09:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apostle Divine C. Okafor[edit]

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

Non-notable minister with no coverage and nothing that would lend itself to notability, with a heaping side of WP:PROMO. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG insofar I find only one reliable source. Largoplazo (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A Google search did not turn up much in terms of reliable sources. —MRD 20 14 00:40, 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 Delete. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skymartbw[edit]

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

This article includes two sources: one of them is a startup listing that fails the requirements of WP:ORGDEPTH, the other is written like an advertisement and encourages the reader to invest, so it certainly doesn't meet our standard for reliable sourcing. The page is also likely promotional, focusing on business models as you would see in marking pieces and directly linking to the website that allows selling. In short: this fails both tests of WP:N, it doesn't meet the general notability guideline, and it is excluded as spam by WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are providing no significant coverage in reliable sources. Furthermore, the Global Post Newspaper article cited in the article is an advertorial, and does not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Concur that the Global Post "article" is really just advertising. -- Whpq (talk) 15:21, 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 delete. So Why 09:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve R Heller[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NPROF as far as I can tell. shoy (reactions) 20:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 20:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 20:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until some citations can be found for the subject of the ineptly written BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete There are no independent reliable sources to be able to verify the claims in the article or establish notability. The only 3 references at this point are all written by the subject of the BLP. I searched for aditional coverage (specially for the awards) but could not find any. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 09:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gilmore Group[edit]

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

there is no independent notability found, article reads like the agency work and why they exist. just another corporate profile. Light2021 (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotionalism and trivia. Significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:02, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuum (design consultancy)[edit]

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

The whole article is mere a corporate Profile, presenting few known things as mere associations nothing else. notability and significant ground are not present. Light2021 (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CORP. I cannot believe such a promo piece exists for almost 14 years and since then google news is well developed. Found no significant coverage in gnews. LibStar (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- notability not inherited from notable clients and there's nothing else there. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:00, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung HL-R5688W[edit]

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

Blatant advert for commercial goods. No WP:RS verify the WP:GNG general notablity of this subject matter. Thus this subject is unsuitable for a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable projection TV out of many. Nate • (chatter) 21:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly non-notable product. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable and this shouldn't be here.Margieth (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 09:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Béla Floncz[edit]

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

This article is most probably a hoax, as there are no results in Google for his native name (Floncz Béla). The creator has written a few articles about non-existent topics in the Hungarian Wikipedia. Einstein2 (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source seems to be a hoax, too, specially prepared for this article. Hoaxbusters (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it was not a hoax, there is no clear claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable and reads like poor fiction writing. Kierzek (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete - The subject's notability claim is similar to multiple Japanese soldiers with articles in Japanese holdout - If sourced - it would be notable - he continued his WWII fight until 1950, and would be a very rare European holdout (there were some German holdouts for approx. 120 days - but that's it I think). Currently sourced to [3] - which doesn't seem at a glance to be a WP:RS. No additional sources evident in a search. Would support keep if sourced.Icewhiz (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Modifying to Delete after looking at this source a bit more. This claim needs to be backed up by a RS.Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails almost every constraint I can think of.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the only source for the article is a page made on Webnode gtranslation of its homepage is "Make your website for free! More than 27 million users already have their own web site. It's really simple. Join today" so it is not useable, a gsearch brings up nothing but various wikipages, so this looks like a delete as one of those urban myths/explanations of the old eccentric fellow living alone in the neighbourhood. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax. No reliable sources to establish notability. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Other cases like this are much better referenced and covered in reliable sources (for instace: Jānis Pīnups), and the difficulty of finding coverage suggests this might indeed be a hoax. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:55, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Descent of Elizabeth II from William the Conqueror[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:NOR, WP:V and the page long ago lost any discernible relationship to the page name. Page was originally created with a simple defined purpose, as the name implies, to show the descent of Elizabeth II from William the Conqueror. This is possibly notable, but given that the descent is now covered in its entirety by Family tree of English and British monarchs, the line from Elizabeth to William representing almost 80% of the total content of that page, it is thoroughly redundant and as such represents a content fork. Since it was created, however, this page has become a catchall for a large range of descents that play no role in the descent of Elizabeth II from William I. These include: 1) the descent of king Henry II from Ecgbert of Wessex; 2) the descent of Henry I from Alfred the Great; 3) the descent of king Edward III from king Harold; 4) the descent of James VI of Scotland from Kenneth MacAlpin; 4) the descent of David I of Scotland from Ecgbert of Wessex; 5) the descent of Ecgbert of Wessex from the semi-legendary Cerdic; 6) the descent of James VI of Scotland from Svein Forkbeard of Denmark; 7) the descent of Edward III of England from king Stephen; 8) the descent of James I of Scotland from Rhys ap Gruffydd, king of Deheubarth; 9) the descent of Edward IV of England from Llewellyn ap Gruffydd, king of Gwynnedd; 10) the descent of James VI of Scotland from Brian Boru, king of Munster and Leinster; 11) the descent of Elizabeth II from Henry IV of England; 12) another descent of Elizabeth II from Henry IV; 13) another descent of Elizabeth II from Henry IV; 14) another descent of Elizabeth II from Henry IV - yes, that's right, four of them, but this one is special, we are told, notable because it is the 'longest', while the other three are notable as the 'shortest'. So, it has one pedigree that is actually appropriate to the page name, and 14 that have nothing to do with it.

The selection of the individual lines shown is entirely arbitrary. It has basically become a collection of descents of any English or Scottish king from some other king somewhere in the British Isles, chosen seemingly on a whim. Elizabeth II descends from the same people dozens, hundreds or even thousands of different ways, and the specific routes chosen are no better than others that could likewise have been chosen, so the choice of lines is arbitrary, and so is the choice of targets - links could also be traced to kings of York, kings of other Welsh kingdoms, and kings of Dublin and other Irish realms, all not shown.

Royal genealogies are often defended because they represent a claim to legitimacy, but of the 15 shown here, only 3, at most, serve such a role (the eponymous E II from W I, James VI from Kenneth MacAlpin, and Egbert from Cerdic), but two of the three have nothing to do with the subject of the page, and there is no logic for lumping them together. The Irish, Welsh, Harold II, Forkbeard, Stephen, and Henry IV descents all look to be original research or else they give undue weight to obscure genealogical trivia, and again they have nothing to do with the subject of the page. The pedigrees are unreferenced in their entirety, and while that may be acceptable for some of the thoroughly undisputed descents, but not for most of the accrued descents, either in terms of verifiability or as an indication that the descent merits mention on Wikipedia, that its inclusion does not represent UNDUE weight. It has been flagged as needing references since 2014, with no attempt being made to improve it. I have tried to restore the page to its original focus by deleting the material not germane to the page topic, but these attempts have been reverted by editors unwilling to discuss the serious issues with the irrelevant content. In the end, though, even were it stripped to its relevant core, the descent of Elizabeth from William, it would only be a content fork.

This is nothing but British royal genealogy-cruft, piled on to a page that at least once had a clearly defined and perhaps notable topic, but which if restored now would just be redundant.Agricolae (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Overgrown and redundant. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (possibly redirect to Family tree of English and British monarchs, which goes back to Alfred the Great. The other descents, except that of the Scottish Crown are not notable. I expect we have an article on the Scottish descent elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Scottish monarchs' family tree, plus one at Competitors for the Crown of Scotland. I think both of these are appropriate - no severe NOR violations or WEIGHT issues, as trees like these (though perhaps slightly less detailed generation-by-generation) appear in secondary sources, though the first tree becomes a bit too busy when it tries unnecessarily to recapitulate most of the material found on the second rather than focusing on the royal lines and using a pointer to the Competitors page for those interested.) Agricolae (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like Agricolae has said, this article has ballooned out-of-control into unmanaged cruft, and the Queen's decent from the Conquer is laid out in Family tree of English and British monarchs.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced OR fest. This was created more than ten years ago at a time when editors could just type stuff up because they wanted to and it's about time we rectify their mistake. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This violates the rule of not geneology, and most of the page is not related to the name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 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. So Why 09:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madhubanti Bagchi[edit]

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

Non-notable singer.All mentions are trivial and chiefly present in city-special supplements of newspapers as a performer among many others similarly mentioned, in local music-shows.Established a band but it too has got trivial promotional coverage.Addatimes,LaughaLafi,Gaana,ITunes et al are non-reliable as are interviews. Winged Blades^Godric 16:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madhubanti Bagchi is a notable singer in the Bengali film industry singing in numerous notable Bengali films which have their individual Wikipedia and IMDb pages which have also been hyperlinked in the article. Her achievements regarding her band and her solo career have been published in leading daily newspapers like Times of india, The Telegraph (Calcutta) and Ei Samay Sangbadpatra. The Wikipedia reliability criteria has not mentioned that news articles in 'local' newspapers are not considered reliable or notable. The artists like Neel Dutt, Savvy Gupta, Indraadip Dasgupta whose links have been mentioned in the article also have been mentioned in "city-special supplements" of newspapers and it seems they have complied to the terms of notability and authenticity. Madhubanti Bagchi has also done playbacks for Bollywood and Mollywood movies. This article has been created with the reference of the several Wikipedia pages that have been linked within it and by the guidelines stated by Wikipedia. Saying that it is non-notable due to the aforementioned reasons indicates a lot of its references to be non-notable as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taurus 27 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madhubanti Bagchi is a well-known and famous playback singer. She has worked with popular music directors and worked in well-known movies in well-known film industries such as Tollywood, Bollywood. Request to delete this page doesn't hold any ground. Information on this page are accurate. She is a notable singer and worked with various well known music directors in many movies. All mentioned references are either from popular newspapers such as Times of india, The Telegraph (Calcutta) and Ei Samay Sangbadpatra or from other verified wikipedia pages. So the articles are news coverage or interviews by independent sources and not promotional articles. All the sources mentioned are based on the guide lines of wikipedia independent sources. These reputed newspapers are leading news papers of Kolkata and can't be marked as unimportant or insignificant sources. The user who requested the page for deletion is probably not aware of the news media or entertainment industry of Kolkata or India. And this deletion request only reflects ignorance to a particular place or culture. This article is created based on proper guidelines and none of the references are illegitimate. Even if there was any question on any particular reference then that should have been addressed specifically rather than discouraging the whole page and requesting for its deletion. Filipino boy (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking due to meatpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Taurus 27. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's a little too obvious to entice someone to take my wager, as if the proposition has an element of chance, but: who wants to bet that Pinoy boy and User:Taurus 27 are the same person? lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.184.239.242 (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of any notability here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G5 block by Taurus 27 66.87.65.139 (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reported Taurus 27 for a sock-puppet investigation, but I don't think he's actually been blocked. GretLomborg (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment G5 was a bit presumptuous, as the article was not created by the sock of a previously blocked user evading said block. That said, the actual meat puppet !vote has been stricken.Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not meet GNG. Lacks significant coverage in WP:RS, no matter how many times (an) editor(s) use(s) the word "notable" to describe him in the article or this discussion. Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this fails NARTIST and well as GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 05:29, 6 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. My apologies I'd nominated the wrong article entirely, No idea how I came to nominate it but I can only thank Mrschimpf for !voting and thus noticing my rather stupid error! (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network (Australia and New Zealand)[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 16:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing about the network's programming is in this article; this describes the network itself, which is definitely notable as the ANZ CN equivalent (and the list of was killed a month ago inline within the article). Nate • (chatter) 21:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shit my apologies I've nominated the wrong bloody article!. –Davey2010^Talk 22:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had a feeling, glad I helped you realize that (I didn't want to take a sceptical tone since the list ofs are a tangle of noms right how)! Nate • (chatter) 23:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chiho Watanabe[edit]

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

Nothing written here convinces me that this person is notable: no awards, no national recognition, etc. The references may indeed support claims made in the article, but that does not make the subject notable. KDS4444 (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd rather err on the side of keeping when the references are mainly in a foreign language. This person has had one, two articles written about her, has received the Japanese equivalent of a screenwriting Emmy (see the second name at number 54 here), and has been mentioned many times by various people on Twitter in the last 24 hours. - Richard Cavell (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter mentions? Really?? Oh, how low thou has fallen... KDS4444 (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Japanese references already in the article are reliable sources, with a few having significant content. Here are a few more: [4], [5], [6], etc. She won a Drama Academy Award for best screenplay for "Papa to musume no nanokakan" in 2007[7]. She's written the screenplays for over a dozen prime time, major network drama series. Most importantly, she was the screenwriter for the NHK Asadora Beppinsan, which was a hit with ratings over 20%[8]. I should add that the NHK Asadora is one of the prime slots on Japanese television, and only established and well-known screenwriters are selected. Passes both WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Michitaro (talk) 09:37, 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 09:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashutosh Joshi[edit]

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

Non-notable policitician. Candidate for mid-level office, apparently not elected and no other claims or refs to support beyond that scope. DMacks (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete MLA candidates are not notable, only those who actually become members of the legislative assembly are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-winning candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, but are eligible for articles only if either (a) they win the seat and thereby hold the office, or (b) they can be shown to have already cleared a notability standard for some reason other than being a non-winning election candidate. But nothing here demonstrates or sources any preexisting notability, and in fact the article is more a WP:COATRACK for an organization he started than it is an actual WP:BLP of him. Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. Delete per nom. --Elton-Rodrigues 23:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYME-105.9 The Ranch FM[edit]

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

Shortlisted for deletion according to WP:DEL4. Coconut1002 (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DYME-FM does exist (as does DYME-TV), but this article definitely doesn't meet any of our standards (for one thing, the station is on 95.9 FM). Nate • (chatter) 21:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Radio stations are not granted an automatic free pass over WP:NMEDIA just because they're asserted to exist — they pass NMEDIA when they can be reliably sourced as meeting the notability criteria, but no sourcing has been shown here at all. And even if this were to be kept, this is not its correct title. Bearcat (talk) 02:27, 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. Sandstein 14:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changi Village Bus Terminal[edit]

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

Non notable bus terminal, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 12:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bus terminal is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources thus lacking notability. Meatsgains (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Mergeto Changi Village, where it will also be the same article all over again. This article has more views and edits compared to the bus terminal. Timothy S1 (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)~~strike thru vote from indef blocked sockpuppet account. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's already 2 paragraphs at Changi Village which is more than sufficient, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 03:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Meatsgains.Charles (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, bus stations are not notable except in exceptional circumstances, and this does not meet that. Rrachet (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with above, not notable. MB 05:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another non-notable station. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Changi Village per WP:ATD-R. Policy tells us that we should not delete what can easily be redirected/merged instead. Regards So Why 09:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to be the dick but consensus looks to be for delete and although not mentioned those !voting delete would be per GNG which is a core policy here, Anyway some redirects just aren't needed and the viewing figures are next to none making the redirect pointless, Not every minor thing here needs to be redirected. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:58, 6 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. self-promotion by sock Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Dubey[edit]

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

Subject is quoted in reliable sources but lacks significant coverage detailing him as an activist. Meatsgains (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, as requested on the other copy of this sockpuppet's autobiography at Deepak Dubey AAP. Cabayi (talk) 12:25, 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. Sandstein 12:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian workers[edit]

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

Nothing but a two sentence definition, specific to US govt, taken from US Dept of Labor glossary. MB 05:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While the term is used, I cannot see sources that would move it beyond a one-sentence dictionary definition. Perhaps soft redirect / merger to some glossary, or perhaps we could have some article on Types of workers in United States, if those terms have legal significance? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 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 07:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support – As stated, it's nothing more than a governmental definition. If anything, it could be turned into a soft redirect to a Wiktionary page or something, but even that seems inappropriate. Perhaps it could redirect to a more relevant Wikipedia article. V2Blast (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an odd definition used only by the US government (no government or agricultural workers?). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge, or move to Wiktionary — see for example migrant worker or itinerant worker. --Hirsutism (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a collection of jargon. DrStrauss talk 06:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: delete, merge or transwiki to Wiktionary?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the ways workers are categorized by different governments could be a useful article. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable. Without proper context this is useless; with proper context, it wouldn't be necessary. --Lockley (talk) 18:53, 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 09:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Philby[edit]

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

Apparently wholly non-notable publicity person, article created by declared COI editor: "…image of Simon Philby, provided by Mr Philby himself for a biography wikipedia page that I am writing for him". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is not notable for his career as a designer or a football player. Meatsgains (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a good example of why COI editing is so risky. Justlettersandnumbers did a great job to remove the unsourced content, and after that it is plain to see how far the subject is from being notable.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:05, 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 Speedy deleted per author's request below RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Alliance Party (Australia)[edit]

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

Deprodded. Original rationale: "Literally zero third-party sources, no registration, no involvement of any notable figures. Fails WP:GNG and all other notability guidelines. May come to something, but in the meantime, WP:TOOSOON". A blog is not a reliable source. Frickeg (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Previous discussions and AfDs have established a rough consensus that being registered is a minimum threshold for the notability of political parties in Australia, though it is not sufficient in isolation of coverage in independent and reliable sources. Checking both the federal and Queensland registers of political parties confirms that this organisation has not become a registered political party. Googling this organisation (which is tricky due to the similarly-named major South African party) provides no evidence that independent reliable sources exist. As such, notability is clearly not established. I note also that the article is written in a promotional tone. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this article is to be deleted then other unregiested parties including Save the Planet should be deleted as well. I note also that the party being listed under unregistered parties on the List_of_political_parties_in_Australia page has been removed. If this article is to be removed due to the unregistered status, then the whole section on the List_of_political_parties_in_Australia page should be removed. If it is believed that this page should be deleted then the rule my be enforced on all pages. Compoman (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have prodded Save the Planet which is similarly non-notable. As for the list of unregistered parties, the other two on there (Communists, Progressive Labour) have previously been registered, thus making them notable. Frickeg (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think that it's reasonable for non-registered parties to be kept if it can be demonstrated that they meet the WP:GNG otherwise... but this doesn't seem to be one of those cases. Perhaps if the party ever takes off and gets some coverage, but it's a long way off that just yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No independent sources, non-notable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely non-notable. The website is down for me right now, and the fact that it is not registered makes me question whether this group actually exists. - Richard Cavell (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete founded in early June 2017 and not even a registered party says it all. We don't create Articles for every new unregistered party. LibStar (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Page Deleted have been in talk with the creator of the page and have come to the decision to deleted the page voluntarily. Once the party is registered and notable according to WP:GNG will attempt page again. Thanks all for contributions. Compoman (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 09:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lavinia Woodward[edit]

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

This is a stereotypical WP:BLP1E, which has blown out of all proportion by steam coming out of The Sun and the Daily Mail's ears. Although everything in the article is sourced, they are basically the same story being reported in multiple places, and there is far too much information cited to The Sun. I think we're best off leaving this article out - unless it somehow acquires longer-lasting significance in British law, which I find unlikely. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:55, 28 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)} 11:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:00, 28 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)} 11:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this falls clearly under WP:BLP1E and that unless sentencing on September 25th, 2017 leads to developments which justify the creation of a page on Lavinia Woodward, it should probably be deleted until then. 87.224.90.205 (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC) — 87.224.90.205 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete -- quintessential BLP1E, there's really no way around it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have nuked all the problematic BLP material from the article, so whats left now is pretty much whats compliant RE the subject. There probably is scope for merging or incorporating this into an article on the inequalities in the UK justice system, the good sources left in the article are not concerned about the subject, so much as the discussion the sentencing comments have caused. When the sentence actually comes in, I expect the discussion to pick up again. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes as per above, very single event Govindaharihari (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, classic WP:BLP1E material. Edwardx (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for BLP1E reasons. Not notable, the event probably does not deserve mention as NOTNEWS. --Bejnar (talk) 05:36, 6 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. New references added, withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neistat Brothers[edit]

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

Puff piece article about vloggers brother, who is not referenced at all. All refs point to Casey Neistat. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG / WP:BASIC per my WP:BEFORE searches. Below are several sources about the brothers and their works. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Neistat brothers’ handmade films make the big time. The Day.
HBO's 'Neistat Brothers': Musings worth meditating on. The Washington Post.
The Neistat Brothers Hit the Big Time. GQ.
New Provocateurs: Casey and Van Neistat. New York.
The Neistat Brothers -- TV Review. The Hollywood Reporter.
A Satisfying Season of Neistat Brothers Home Movies. KXAS-TV.
'The Neistat Brothers': A Cool Thing. PopMatters.
The Conversation: HBO's Home Movie Hit. ABC News.
HBO’s ‘Neistat Brothers’ Left Me Speechless. Variety. (Short article)

Comment Seems to be genuine. Excellent work North America¹⁰⁰⁰ Seems to genuine, not another celeb puff piece which I thought from the sources and the search I conducted. Thanks North America¹⁰⁰⁰ . Withdrawn by nominator. scope_creep (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. So Why 09:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mauer[edit]

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

WP:NOTE --Ryanharmany (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:39, 28 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)} 10:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable music composer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This person very recently became more notable. Odd that the article doesn't mention the current debacle, as the article was created after the debacle broke. Just this week Mauer became notorious for having what appears to be some sort of public breakdown where Mauer filed DMCA take-downs against publishers of games she'd created music for, and every youtuber who had played or reviewed those games. [9]

That said, That's really the only news coverage this person has gotten, and it'd be tough to cover all this without turning the article into a hatchet job. ApLundell (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A momentary drama-bomb doesn't necessarily equate to long-term notability. Perhaps it will, and maybe at that time this article could be resubmitted, but this seems like one of those single-incident-notability cases that, as far as I'm aware, generally haven't been held up as meeting WP:BIO notability criteria. I'd particularly point to WP:PSEUDO. This doesn't really satisfy any of the bullet points raised there. - Vianello (Talk) 20:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with Vianello. It might be wise to delete this soon instead of waiting for the customary seven days. The Alex Mauer drama is still growing, and the article comes up near the top of the Google results. Really, I'm pleasantly surprised that it hasn't already attracted a million first-time editors eager to dole out Internet Justice. ApLundell (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, suggested target being YouTube Copyright Issues: The person is really only notable for their recent actions involving the copyright dispute outside of niche groups. The issue itself seems notable to discuss on a different article; the person does not seem to reach that, though. --204.106.255.44 (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right now there's no content worth merging. If the YT Copyright Issues article includes a blurb about Mauer in the future, a redirect might be worthwhile, but right now such a redirect would just be confusing. ApLundell (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks like someone has nuked the article of the controversial actions. Nothing left to merge, then. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of its significance on Wikipedia. Light2021 (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough for a biography and if the copyright strike issue generates enough attention it should be covered in a section of the copyright issue article not here.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not noteworthy outside of legal issues coming to spotlight in June 2017. 2601:240:CA01:7D10:DD24:ACD6:50CF:754A (talk) 06:37, 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 09:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsin Nawaz[edit]

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

fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:Actor. cited sources are not reliable enough. Saqib (talk) 09:44, 28 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)} 10:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:11, 28 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}}.

Mohsin Nawaz is a notable personality of Pakistan and i am personally a admirer of him. People idealize him and he is a source of inspiration for us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajidaKhanum (talk • contribs) 10:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Too many SPA's involved with this bio, suspected socks needs to be investigated. User:Fdeeba, User:Haroon Christy, User:MajidaKhanum, User:Drshaziarehman. --Saqib (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the claims of sockpuppetry should be withdrawn as this isn't the proper venue to make unsubstantiated claims. As for the article, the sources are too weak and there isn't enough to demonstrate the individual passes WP:GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia's notability standards for radio broadcasters do not include "MajidaKhanum is an admirer", but require reliable source coverage about the broadcaster in media independent of his own self-published web presence. None of the sources here are satisfying what's required, however — right across the board, the referencing here is to YouTube videos, Facebook, "staff" profiles on the websites of companies or organizations with which he's directly affiliated, user-generated "open platforms for sharing viral content", and on and so forth. Exactly zero of the sources shown here even begin to approach what's required — and whether he's your hero or not, this is still not the kind of sourcing it takes to make him eligible for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 02:19, 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 speedy deleted. A7 by Anthony Bradbury (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 15:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aswin Pushparaja[edit]

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

Non-notable, created by COI editor, speedy tag removed by editor who added under construction template when it is not actually being worked on Melcous (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did not look at the revision history close enough, and I retract my under construction tag, agree with nom. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Speedy G11. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 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) 14:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gottlieb (Literary Agent)[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable literary agent, works in his father's agency. No indication of in-depth coverage in solid independent sources. Possible – but strenuously denied – undisclosed paid editing under discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:HeatherMPinchbeck. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:15, 28 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)} 08:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bravo, again same issue. I guess we already discussed that if paid I'll disclose, but you seem to force me. Anyway, I have no issues, delete the whole Wikipedia because you owns it. I am feeling enough harassed and chased WP:HARASS. I don't care whether it stays or not. You feel it shouldn't be there being one of the famous living agent in the US it's fine. Anyway, please if anyone could explain and enhance the article it is appreciated. SoWhy You saved the article please I want your views. HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not misunderstand my actions. I did not "save" the article, I merely decided that it cannot be speedy deleted under WP:A7. I have not made any judgment call on the subject's notability nor do I have any views about the subject. Regards So Why 11:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is also a series of WP:HOUNDING and WP:HARASS including not respecting good faith. You can see the involvement. I already asked help on how to close my Wikipedia account. I am done, enough harassed. I want a peace of mind, I am not a terrorist that they are chasing my edits like I am planting some explosive devices. HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claim to notability and no significant coverage in independent sources. --bonadea contributions talk 09:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not clear what is supposed to be notable here - that he went to college, that he has a job? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. No claim to notability made. Edwardx (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this rather poor article comes nowhere near to proving notability. Domdeparis (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no assertions of anything suggesting notability - it looks like just another of those "X is a person who has a job" articles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Boing! said Zebedee. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 22:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any allged paid editing is beside the point here. The sources simply do not demonstrate notability. Indeed this is right on the edge of A7, and I am known to be less willing than some to delete for A7. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:40, 6 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. The article was speedily deleted by administrator Brookie (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#A7 at 16:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC). Mz7 (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lola the Buzzy Bee[edit]

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

Unpublished book; the only thing of note is that it was written by a 12 year old. No references; no Google hits for the book's title (with the exception of Wikipedia mirrors). Possible self-promotion. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unreferenced article about an unpublished book. If it is reviewed in reliable sources, an article can be written at that time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Cullen. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a forthcoming self-published book. No evidence of notability whether under WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unpublished non notable book by non notable author. Probable spam for the book. Fails WP:NBOOK. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:32, 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 speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Red Swan[edit]

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

Not enough topics to disambiguate; was redirected to Green bean as red swan beans are apparently a cultivar thereof but currently no mention is made of them in the article. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added a bunch of new entries, mostly borderline cases. In various articles there are mentions of Red Swan Studios and of Red Swan Ventures, but I haven't included them. – Uanfala 10:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Uanfala's great work, this was a useless page before. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist, do all these entries (meeting MOS:DABMENTION) convince you to withdraw the nomination now? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Uanfala (talk · contribs). I believe that will work. Withdrawal is the best course of action now. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 09:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quemar Press[edit]

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

Per WP:NCORP. Primary sources make up the majority of listed references, others are reviews of books that the Press is affiliated with. They have a notable publication with the Play with Knives trilogy, but I think this is WP:TOOSOON for the company to have its on WP page. Comatmebro (talk) 04:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:47, 28 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)} 04:47, 28 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)} 04:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tend to be lenient with articles about well established publishing houses. This one is only a year old, so I think that it is too soon for a Wikipedia article without references to significant coverage in impeccable independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article I created, Quemar Press, is being discussed for deletion. Thank you Cullen328 for suggesting I discuss my attempts to improve the article here. I just added more independent references to Quemar Press in Mainstream Media, such as The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Guardian and Mainstream Literature such as that of Giramondo Publishing. Are there any other ways I could improve the Quemar Press article during this discussion? JMMNMT (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as a relatively new publisher this appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON, also as the founder, Katharine Margaret Toohey, is the daughter of Jennifer Maiden and (at the moment) the 'main claim for fame' is the publishing of some of Maiden's works, we could have a redirect and/or a sentence or two in the Maiden article instead of this standalone. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I created this page, I did not know a year was too soon. Now that I know about the 'too soon' issue, I consent to its deletion. Thanks everyone for your time, editing and courtesy JMMNMT (talk) 09:52, 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. postdlf (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of top 10 singles in 2017 (Philippines)[edit]

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

This is a brand new chart and its doubtful that there is coverage or discussion of what songs are reaching the top 10 in reliable 3rd party sources. At this time, fails requirements for notability of stand-alone lists. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. It is new chart, and there are many pages of various charts on Wikipedia, so this may eventually be relevant and have enough coverage to keep. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article should be kept as other countries also have similar pages like the United States, Canada and Germany to name a few. Even, some minor component charts have separate similar articles like Mainstream Top 40 which is a component to Billboard Hot 100 and Scottish Singles Chart which is a component to UK Singles Chart. I don't get why the Philippines can't have a similar article, too. Janbryan (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So is your argument to keep WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 00:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poster Boys[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No evidence of having begun principal photography, per WP:NFF. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited in the article ("Poster Boys to Release on 8 September 2017". BoxOfficeCollection.in. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)) says "Film's shoot has already been completed and now it is under post production stage" and "makers have announced it's release date i.e. 8th of September 2017". It is unclear whether this is a reliable source. However a Google search quickly revealed these reliable sources:

"Poster Boys: Bobby Deol's comeback also stars Sunny Deol, Shreyas Talpade. Will it be as good as its original Poshter Boyz?". Indian Express. 8 April 2017.
"Bobby Deol's comeback film Poster Boys to hit theatres in September". Hindustan Times. New Delhi. 7 April 2017.

These both confirm the release date as 8 September 2017. The Indian Express article says that the film is a remake of Poshter Boyz, for which we have an article. In my view the involvement of a major studio (Sony Pictures) and a theatrical release are good indications of notability.

Please search for additional sources before nominating articles for deletion, see WP:BEFORE. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed that this would have been resolved by my conctradicting the proposer's assertion that there there was " No evidence of having begun principal photography". The reliable sources that I have already posted confirm that shooting has been completed and a theatrical release date has been set. It appears that further evidence of notability is still sought. The film has received repeated coverage in the mainstream Indian media. This is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and thereby meets the WP:GNG. This is demonstrated by the following citations:

"Bobby Deol says being a star kid is a bonus, but finally, it's work that matters". Hindustan Times. 9 April 2017. The actor, who will be seen sharing screen space with brother Sunny in actor Shreyas Talpade's debut directorial titled Poster Boys, releasing in September, says that he is not in a mood to let a state of saturation come in his career.
Davis, Maggie (28 January 2017). "Poster Boys! Sunny Deol celebrates brother Bobby Deol's birthday in the most adorable way". india.com.
Kulkarni, Prachi (12 December 2016). "Sunny Deol and Bobby Deol turn 'Poster Boys' for Shreyas Talpade's directorial debut". india.com.
"Saif Ali Khan's film to release with Sunny Deol's Poster Boys". Catch News. 24 June 2017.
Shaikh, Samina (12 December 2016). "Deol brothers are back with Poster Boys!". The Times of India.
Pathak, Ankur (25 January 2017). "Bobby Deol On Lost Stardom, Plans Of Reviving It, And How Imtiaz Ali Seemingly Screwed Him Over". Huffington Post. He's turning 48 on January 27 and that has him excited, so has his big comeback, Poster Boys.
"'Poster Boys': Here's the first look of Sunny Deol, Bobby Deol and Shreyas Talpade's film". mid-day.com. 12 December 2016.

Verbcatcher (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Filming has been completed. Meets WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

"Poster Boys: Sunny Deol and Bobby Deol's next to release on September 8". The New Indian Express. 10 April 2017. Retrieved 29 June 2017. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting applicable criteria for films. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:11, 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 no consensus with WP:NPASR. So Why 09:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 FIBA Polynesian Basketball Cup[edit]

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

Non-notable sports tournament. Also lacking content to justify an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Taking a look at 2017 in basketball, there are several other comparable international basketball competitions. This is also close enough to occurring that it doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL. I'd say if more external sources don't materialize within a few months, then deletion is fine. Right now though, expansion and patience is best. This is a competition under the auspices of the international organizing body of this sport. South Nashua (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 08:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Walsh[edit]

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

The sources are: a) an article she wrote to prove that she worked for the media outlet; b) a self-written bio on Salon; c) a self-written article about why she went on Fox News; and d) a Columbia Journalism Review article about how she lost subscriptions El cid, el campeador (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment was she an editor-at-large or an editor-in-chief? The article is contradictory. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power~enwiki, The Nation and this MSNBC transcript I found on HighBeam say that she was editor in chief at Salon for six years. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are almost entirely from publications she is connected with. One of the main sources is even an article she wrote. This is not the stuff notability is made out of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 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 08:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Windeler[edit]

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

claims of notability, but no actual evidence. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are links and ciatations included in the article and all facts are stated in editors own words. Sentence is question is a statement and is not framed to be plagiarized. Anyone could have used the sentence in the same way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TiffaniL (talk • contribs) 16:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you're lapsing into plagiarism-related arguments, which have nothing to do with anything since nobody accused anybody of that. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is based far too strongly on primary sources rather than reliable ones (e.g. his own LinkedIn, his own "our president" profile on the website of his own organization, etc.), and the few acceptably reliable sources aren't about him but merely feature him giving soundbite about the concept that is the subject of those articles. Nothing claimed in the article is an automatic notability freebie that exempts him from having to be the subject of enough media coverage about him to clear WP:GNG, but this article as written and sourced presents virtually no evidence that he is. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- wholly unremarkable. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn nor a fundraising venue. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, and somewhat promotional. DaveApter (talk) 15:20, 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 no consensus. Despite two relists, no further discussion happened (for three weeks), especially none about the sources mentioned. So Why 08:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung SGH-G600[edit]

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

WP:MILL cellphone. Article has no references; notability has not been established.

Deprodded by one "SMSNG" with no edit summary, and without addressing the concern in the PROD rationale. —Keφr 12:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's got some press coverage[10][11][12][13] --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 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 no consensus. So Why 08:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mental fact[edit]

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

Essentially a coatrack for Searle; redirect to him, possibly? Anmccaff (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC) Anmccaff (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The terms seems some use, but I couldn't find any definition, and it seems it may be used in philosophy beyond Searle. But without at least a referenced definition this is WP:OR. Given notability is unclear, I lean towards weak delete due to OR issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak keep I don't support a redirect to John Searle. The term appears to have some use by others, but the article needs improvement and I'm not sure what the generally-accepted definition is. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep G. E. Moore spent several pages defining and discussing mental facts in A Defense of Common Sense, pp. 10-13 ff., and mentioned them in several other pieces [14] [15]. More recently, several authors have briefly discussed the term in treatments of Moore's work, including Tully 1976, Hellie 2007, and Preti 2008. This would be enough for a short standalone article independent of Searle, although it would be nice to have somebody comparing their conceptions. FourViolas (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Short standalone article" runs afoul of WP:NOTDIC. Even with the article creaor's coatracking for Searle removed, it still doesn't belong except as part of a larger article. Also, as mentioned above, it's very easy to get cites for the usage before Moore was born. Anmccaff (talk) 15:02, 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 no consensus. So Why 08:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Girls of FHM[edit]

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

Non notable and very short lived pop act, Although they covered the song Da Ya Think I'm Sexy? the article makes no reference to them nor is there anything online, Ofcourse there could be sources offline however that would be a wild guess and I were to put money on it I'd say there wasn't any sources offline, Fails NMUSIC & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 02:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Top ten single clearly satisfies WP:MUSIC#2 (even if The Guardian thinks this charity single is gruesome). duffbeerforme (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of NMUSIC it states and I quote "Where possible, composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article should be merged into the article about their work. When a composer or lyricist is known for multiple works, such a merger may not be possible." - Obviously the band have insufficient verifiable material,

If desired I could add a one liner to the song article and this could be redirected however as it stands the band aren't notable (sure their song reached a top ten but that's no different to someone staring in a known film - In short reliable sources are needed which at present there are none), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 02:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On your quote "Where possible, composers or lyricists ..." They are not composers or lyricists. Yes, reliable sources are needed and reliable sources exist. A merge may possibly be a good idea, either to the song or to FHM, but which? A merge does not need deletion. A small stub seems like a good solution. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point I'm not sure why I thought they were but reading the guideline again it does state notability is not inherited etc etc, Well personally I think merging to the song would be better - Something like "Da Ya Think I'm Sexy?" was also covered by novelty pop act The Girls of FHM in 2004" or something to that effect, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 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 no consensus. So Why 08:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Robert Coleman[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. I can't find any better sources. Seems like a non-notable musician to me. More opinions needed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep-- the article claims his compositions have been recorded by Naxos Records which is a major label. Admittedly that goes to the notability guidelines for "ensembles" rather than composers, but it suggests a certain degree of notability. Looking up the Naxos recording of five of his pieces for the album "Starry Night" he also conducted and the piece was played by the Frankfurt Radio Symphony Orchestra. There's a little more info on the Naxos site here: http://staging-naxos.aws.naxos.com/person/David_Robert_Coleman/208865.htm. It looks like he may be better known as a conductor. http://news.uzreport.uz/news_9_e_85412.html Crypticfirefly (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 00:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi Ghat[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOFEAT (WP:GNG) —usernamekiran(talk) 20:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- There is a lot of coverage of the place in multiple reliable sources. A google search for ("Gandhi Ghat" "Patna") gives 251 news results, 143 results in google books, 1010 mentions in Dainik Jagran, 426 mentions in Dainik Bhaskar, 296 mentions in Telegraph among many more, more than enough to pass WP:GNG. NIT Patna website calls it "one of the most important and reverential place of Patna" and also says "The Gandhi Ghat is associated with the immersion of ashes of father of the Nation Mahatma Gandhi in the river Ganges". Due to its historical significance, the subject also passes 2nd point of WP:GEOFEAT. Pratyush (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This is a historical place in Patna, Bihar, India. It is famous for its Ganga Aarti and also known for immersion of ashes of Mahatma Gandhi. This place has historical significance and I think it deserves a page on Wikipedia. This place is also one of the major tourist attractions on the banks of Ganges in the city. Ananprat (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PratyushSinha101 and Ananprat: kindly try to improve the article. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will surely try to improve it when I have time. Pratyush (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the coverage found by PratyushSinha101 are trivial mentions of river flooding and water levels at that location, and other routine things. This applies especially to the news searches. However, the book search does find enough coverage to pass GNG. MB 05:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources to demonstrate WP:GNG. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:50, 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 no consensus. So Why 08:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Cinema History[edit]

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

This seems to be about a term used by one writer, referenced only to his work. It shouldn't be a standalone article unless it meets WP:GNG BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am not seeing the substantial coverage independent of Maltby which would be needed for an article. Fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once again I see people arguing in a deletion discussion that there's no coverage of a topic, and then I search and find... There are academic articles about New Cinema History here.[16][17] It features in the Oxford Dictionary of Film Studies (although New Film History is the main title with New Cinema History an alternative).[18] Richard Maltby probably is notable himself per WP:PROF as holder of a named professorship at a reasonably distinguished institution (Flinders Uni).[19] His best known book, Hollywood Cinema, was published in 1995 so there's a lack of reviews online[20], though he seems widely cited[21]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a suitable sourced stub with thanks for the research by Colapeninsula showing coverage enough for a stub. Kudos. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not the depth of sources using and discussing this term that we need to justify having an article on a neologism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still basically a "one person" usage, the sources cited by Colapeninsula are by Daniel Biltereyst himself or are derivative because they are reviewing his and Malthy's book. --Bejnar (talk) 05:45, 6 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. Sandstein 14:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Gill[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Contested prod claimed that the drummer meets MUSICBIO No. 6, "a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles", but prominence here means GNG and that is still not met. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:MUSICBIO #6 with Saxon and Motorhead. The history of all these bands is covered in multiple books. The word "prominence" is explained in the footnotes, and he meets that definition even if he doesn't meet your imaginative attempt to redefine words. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WHere are the extended interviews. MUSIBIO does not get to win over GNG. The subject is simply assumed to be notable. It must be proven. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has significant coverage in reliable sources books and magazines as shown in a google book search for "Pete Gill" Saxon . The average age of a webpage is only 100 days so web coverage of a great many older musicians and their work is very light unless they are superstars Atlantic306 (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Atlantic306: I just saw this. Care to list a few here? I see mentions of him, but no in-depth coverage. The same with a Google search. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 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 speedy keep. I consider the references as PR or notices, but I think it will be kept, so I'm withdrawing this. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Abdelhamid[edit]

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

President of extremely minor association. Little apparent evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 28 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)} 04:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:26, 28 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)} 04:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject of the article has been profiled internationally for her work in Bustle, The Brownsville Herald, ELLE, Huffington Post, DNA (India), National Catholic Reporter, The Economic Times (India), PBS, and Teen Vogue. I added these (and other) references to the article, please take a look. She passes GNG and received significant attention for both WISE and the Hijabis in New York project. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the references included in the article, WP:GNG has been met. Hmlarson (talk) 19:47, 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. Mostly (but not exclusively) per the detailed analysis of the references by DGG. Randykitty (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dipayan Ghosh[edit]

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

no third party evidence of 1notability -- the references are almost entirely his own blog entries. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not yet achieved. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Thank you, DGG & Xxanthippe. I disagree. DGG's complaint cited no 3rd party evidence and references that were almost entirely his own blog entires. If you look more closely at the references, there are a range of over 20. Only 3 are blogs written by Ghosh, and each of those was published through the White House. There also is 3rd party notability in the original set of references, from Politico, Forbes, EdScoop and a few others. The page has been edited to include additional references from the Wall Street Journal, Harvard, New America, Cornell and Politico. Thank you. Climate7298 (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The recent update by Climate7298 has resolved the notability issue. I would have placed the {{refimprove}} attention tag on this; not necessary to bring it to AfD so quickly. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep I had reviewed this page. It passes the GNG. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Summoned by page's creator via my talk page. The subjects meets general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments There are a few more refs. than when I looked at it; examining them,

is reliable for the facts of his degree, but does not show notability .
the various 30 under 30 lists have been generally considered to mean might be notable some day, this is a WSJ article about one of their lists.
he wrote this himself
press release from his university
announcement about a lecture
directory listing
interview, where he says what he wants
another 30 under 30 from Forbes.
he wrote this one (
publication by his work group
ditto
ditto
announcement about a talk he gave he gave
publication from his workgroup
ditto
ditto
ditto
ditto
ditto
mere mention -- Politico (20)
another mere mention -- Politico
announcement for a panel he was on
another writeup by Forbes
announcement for a panel he was on
anther announcement
summary of a panel he was on
promotional bio from associated organization

The net result is three 30 under 30 write-ups from Forbes. Agreed, they like him. Is this enough for notability? The WSJ is duplicating Forbes, Politico is notices, publishing thru the White House is not notability. New America is not independent; cornell is an announcement. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Thanks for your feedback, all. Respectfully, I think many of DGG’s statements about the references are incorrect. The references that were used in the page, including blog posts published through the White House and articles of recognition, are the same or are very similar to those used in many other existing biographical pages. As others have posed, the subject seems to meet the necessary standards. Climate7298 (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once someone is notable, we can describe what they wrote, but depending on the nature of what they wrote it may or may not show them notable. Writing position papers for a government agency in general does not show notability, unless they have provable great impact. "notability " does not apply to the content of an article, but it does apply to deciding whether woe should have an article. (And, even sos, many of the mentions and minor papers listed in WP articles are not significant content and should be removed, depending on context. There are several hundred thousand over-promotional bios in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 14:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is clearly notable per Wikipedia standards, whether we look at the GNG or cross-examine similar pages. Several reputed and independent sources have covered the subject’s opinions or profiled him. Earlier, I did not expand on why I think DGG’s statements about the references’ independence are untrue, but to look more closely at some of DGG’s claims: to say that [7] is simply “an interview where he says what he wants” ignores that this was with a reporter employed by a reputed, independent news source that has quoted him in other articles, too. In another example, [14] and [18] are not “publications by his group,” but instead clearly list him alongside other noted “public policymakers” who were interviewed by the U.S. Departments of Education and Commerce for guidance, signaling notability. The Politico references (we only included two but there are more), are not just passing mentions because Politico described something happening to the subject. [24-26] are obviously not “announcements” or “summaries” of panels. They are independent news reports that discuss things the subject said at major public meeting with other senior participants including an attorney general. Because of these gaps, it seems DGG’s nomination contradicts the Wikipedia stated policy. Page clearly seems to pass GNG. Climate7298 (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG.Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- too soon per available sources & reads like a LinikedIn profile / glorified CV. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Thanks for relisting this, North America¹⁰⁰⁰. Found some new relevant links, https://www.wired.com/story/google-big-eu-fine/, https://qz.com/1009591/facebooks-pride-button-appears-to-be-rolling-out-in-a-way-that-is-culturally-sensitive-to-bigots-fb/, http://thehill.com/policy/technology/338226-facebook-feels-the-heat, http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-tech/2017/06/28/obama-digital-expats-reunite-at-new-america-221089. K.e.coffman, would you have suggestions on how we can improve? I agree with you, but had only copied style I have seen in other bios. Climate7298 (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failing significant coverage in independent sources, The new citations suffer the same infirmities as the previous ones. --Bejnar (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a guy with a job, his White House work seems to have been in a very subordinate function. The article reads like his CV. If we'd cover him we'd have to cover every Millenial tech expert or government staffer with a decent internet footprint. Sources seem to be mainly passing mentions or otherwise peripheral coverage, insofar as they are even reliable. Sandstein 14:44, 6 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. postdlf (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 in British music charts[edit]

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

Declined PROD, rationale was to take to AfD anyhow. Very much a undersourced article with one source acting as priamary source. Verging on NOTNEWS as to be honest it isn't as notable as the Worldwide music charts. If the individual singles were notable and have their own article, wouldn't a category suffice? Nördic Nightfury 19:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 19:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 19:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge anything redeeming to 2017 in British music. This has just become a sprawling mess and it goes back to the 2011 article (2011 in British music charts), primarily the WP:NOTNEWS and WP:IINFO problems of the weekly chart summaries. It would be like recapping the weekly progress of a sports league. The chart lists should just be pared down to the main overall albums and songs charts (don't need downloads, streaming, etc. on what should be a high level summary article) and merged to 2017 in British music. Significant chart achievements can then be listed there as well. For the lesser charts, there are dedicated lists for List of UK Album Downloads Chart number ones of the 2010s, List of UK Compilation Chart number ones of the 2010s, etc. for more detailed breakdowns. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:50, 14 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) 03:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of this is really excessively trivial (I don't think we need a week by week description, just a description of the more important events in the year), but the information on number ones etc is valid and probably too long to merge (and going to get longer). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. So Why 07:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Arefin Dipan[edit]

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

Non-notable as single article per WP:AUTHOR. Most of the citations published after his attack and death. Should be marz to Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 06:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep Week only because most cites are postmortem. However, Dipan is not WP:1E like Washiqur Rahman or other parties subject to Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh; he is rather of similar notability as Avijit Roy. WP:AUTHOR doesn't apply since he is not primarily an author, WP:GNG may not have passed before death, but it certainly passes now. --nafSadh did say 17:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources in English may mainly be from after he was murdered, but there are nontrivial Bengali sources preceding his death (like here). --Lambiam 14:38, 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 03:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to James O'Keefe#CNN undercover videos (2017). Clear consensus not to keep (especially given that many "keep" opinions are very perfunctory). It's less clear what if anything to do with the content. Just deleting it has no consensus , and there's no clear consensus either for a merge target. But any merger can be worked out editorially. For now I'm closing this as redirect to the indicated target because that's where the issue is already covered. Sandstein 14:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CNN 2017 undercover videos controversy[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, for starters. No reliable sources cited (YouTube is not a reliable source.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a couple reliable sources added since then, but "network employee disagrees with his network's coverage of an issue" is dog bites man stuff, and at this point there's no evidence that this is going to get the sort of lasting coverage needed to make it more than a one-time news story. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This AfD is premature. No reliable sources? Come on. A quick google search yields dozens of results from mainstream news outlets such as USA Today, ABC news, LA Times, The Hill, and others. So please, try improving the article first before deleting it in less than one hour after its creation. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Wikinews and we don't write articles about every single thing that ends up in a news publication once or twice. Some evidence of enduring encyclopedicity is needed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Wikip is not a news agency. However this is supposed to be an encyclopedic article about an event of significant imp. While YT is indeed not a reliable source, it is yet the only source for this info. Plus, CNN has said video = legitimate.

Also, I recall requesting to delete a page concerning Comey's memos. My request got denied for the same reason that we are giving out here: this is an event of significant imp. Reporting on Apple's new revolutionary vision API would not suit Wikipedia. Reporting on CNN being allegedly secretly taped and claimed to be focused on Trump to boost ratings is not. At least the 1.3 million people don't believe it isn't imp. Thank you.--Smghz (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~James O'Keefe~~ Project Veritas - This video represents one of the many things that James O'Keefe has done in his career. It has yet developed to be on the same level as his other actions (none of which are notable enough to be independent from O'Keefe himself). Unless this goes on for more than a month (which is very likely), this doesn't need an independent article. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 03:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I respect that, but other comparable events had their pages written in a matter of hours. See Comey memos for an example. Also see Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia for another. There is a lot more info being uncovered as we speak. There is potential to this article and unfortunately I don't think that is being seen. Thanks.--Smghz (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't really consider the events comparable. There is only one sitting FBI Director and only one sitting POTUS at any given time both obviously being extremely high/important positions. So a controversy or a serious event involving either(or both) of them will always have a resonating level of significance. The opinions of a handful of the thousands of employees or dozen(hundred? idk how any) of producers that CNN has, is not really comparable. Even if it was the President/CEO/Directors saying the same comments, while it would be a lot more significant/notable, it still wouldn't be comparable to Comey/Trump since it still just the opinions of citizens. WikiVirusC (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I changed my destination from James O'Keefe to Project Veritas because it is an action done by the organization itself. My stance on redirection still stands. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 12:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe it's time Project Veritas got its own article, separate from James O'Keefe. Then we could merge this article into there. Also the title of this article should probably be "American Pravda". ^Falling_Gravity 04:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, looking at James O'Keefe's article, it's pretty much all about what his organization has been doing, and there's surely enough to support an independent article about it rather than stuffing it all in his biography. Then, as you say, this content could be merged there with all the others. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed as well. James O'Keefe hosts the videos, while others are sent to secretly record. In fact, one of the filmers (Allison Maass) was recorded bribing others to incite violence, and was featured on Huffington Post and Snopes. Furthermore, the organization is being sued in a million dollar lawsuit, per this Snopes article. Be Bold. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 12:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Project Veritas would be a reasonable spinoff article per Wikipedia guidelines. WP:SPINOFF. Ceosad (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - given that O'Keefe has " O’Keefe has previously spliced videos together to imply its subjects were saying things they were not." [22], this whole article as written is one big BLP vio (regarding Bonifield) as it's basically used to spread unverifiable attacks on a living person. The notability is unlikely to last, per WP:NOTNEWS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If somebody creates an article on Project Veritas then *some* of it, properly minding BLP, can be merged into that article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WhiteHouse encouraged the press and the public to watch it.[[23]]

Keep However, I agree with advice above to put this as a header for a Project Veritas article. It is now time for it. --Smghz (talk) 05:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to James O'Keefe - per WP:NOTNEWS; and the sooner an enterprising admin slaps a 7-day-old minimum on new US politics articles the better. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to James O'Keefe -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, the sourcing is adequate. When/if Project Veritas is a standalone article, it can then redirect or whatever there. ValarianB (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good article with good sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.52.39.24 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2017
Keep or merge into the other article when created. 81.157.84.189 (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

- The only one who is causing strife here is you. You should be penalized for not only insulting other users but also using a homophobic insult. Not allowed.--Smghz (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what, the third or fourth IP to show up to !vote Keep on this article. Somebody's coordinating off wiki.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this stinks of socks, meat, or recruitment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep for now.~~ Merge into CNN controversies. This AfD is premature. Certainly the tapes are receiving plenty of attention from reliable sources, but as this is a developing story (with tapes being released daily) it's impossible to even guess at their lasting notability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently no more videos are being released, and this story has had some time to percolate, and it appears to be nothing but a nothingburger. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOPAGE. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is POV fork of page James O'Keefe or page CNN. If I understand correctly, this page is about a tape where John Bonifield tells his personal opinion that the Trump-Russia connection is "mostly bullshit". Of course if Bonifield was someone with deep and specific knowledge of the subject, his opinion could be placed on a page about the alleged Trump-Russia connection, but we do not even have such page (?) However, I fail to see this "mostly bullshit" as an encyclopedic subject. My very best wishes (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's "mostly bullshit," it might be notable "mostly bullshit." Remember that we have articles about hoaxes and other things that are "completely bullshit." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how this is notable alone. Perhaps this belongs to page CNN? My very best wishes (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to O'Keefe, there's already a section about it there (under development) in which the content of this article can comfortably fit. Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to James O'Keefe or Project Veritas. Having a separate article gives undue weight for the topic. WP:NPOVVIEW. Ceosad (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, this AfD is premature. There's more videos coming out and the series is not even over yet. A new video, which according to O'Keefe will be "bigger than Bonifield" will be out in a few hours. The notability of this video series is rising quite exponentially. These videos have been the top trending in YouTube for the past couple of days now. Would advise that users participating in this AfD take this into consideration. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Bigger than Bonifield" is saying very little; that video made news for about 5 minutes and then disappeared. The video of Van Jones saying something that he's said on national TV for months now was an even tastier nothingburger. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't write articles about things people breathlessly claim will happen. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTALBALL. Seriously, if the "AfD is premature" because supposedly "stuff will happen in the future" then... don't freakin' create an article on it yet!!! How hard is that? I mean, that's not even like WP:NOTNEWS, it's WP:NOTNOTEVENYETNEWS. Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might also add that so far both released videos have been duds (except in portions of the far right internet). First one is some non-notable employee of CNN who has nothing to do with their political coverage, second one is a straight up deceptive hoax. With this record, I seriously doubt the "more videos coming out" is gonna matter much.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. Like, after a few days, it seems like all of these videos only further tarnish Mr. O'Keefe's reputation as a deceptive editor. The only problem left is Mr. Bonifield's own response, but it looks like from his description that he is just expressing an opinion not representative of most of CNN's political "contributors". I'd love to know future directions on the standing of this page. Thanks.--smghz (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually rather like the third one Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to James O'Keefe; this is not a controversy -- merely a stunt. Not independently notable from the person behind it. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to James O'Keefe - merely one stunt/hoax among many. Neutrality^talk 23:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now As the number of videos by this organization keeps growing, we can later make a determination of whether to keep it as its own article or merge it into CNN controversies.F2Milk (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTALBALL. If the number of videos grows and gets attention in sources THEN you can create the article. You've got it completely backwards.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yeah, this is another sketchy throw away account with just a few edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not very nice, please keep it WP:CIVIL.F2Milk (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I, like others have before me in this discussion, emphasize that this AfD is not premature. Mainspace content must meet mainspace policies from the moment they are created or moved to article space. The key policies here being WP:NOT and WP:N. If someone wants to experiment with content that does not presently meet these criteria, it should be done in Draft or User space. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy keep: This has been at the top of the news for the past week, it's clearly notable enough for its own article. Jdcomix (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC) Merge with CNN controversies - Opinion has changed, no evidence of lasting notability. Jdcomix (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what news you're watching, but this has NOT been at "the top of the news". There were a couple articles about it. The whole Mika Brzezinsky and Joe Scarborough thing got wayyyyyy more attention and we don't even have an article on that (not that we necessarily should).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what news you're watching where they **aren't** covering this. The videos posted to Project Veritas's YouTube channel have 1 million+ views each (which admittedly isn't important, but shows it's at least quite notable). Fox News, Breitbart, New York Times, and Washington Post have all come out with reports on the story, and they were near the top of the website for a day or so. Jdcomix (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Post and the Times barely wrote anything about it except when mentioning O'Keefe's destroyed reputation. O'Keefe's crediblity has been questioned not once, not twice, but multiple times. He has been jailed for a federal crime and had to pay fines. Even with these CNN tapes, there are question marks about who these persons are, how representative they are of CNN as an organization (well, maybe except Zucker), and if what they said was situated deceptively in a context to achieve political gains. That is why these tapes are edit and not released raw. NYT, Post, NPR, etc. are reliable organizations that attempt to discuss issues from every part of the political spectrum fairly and objectively. Unfortunately that is not what you see on Fox News, Breitbart, or Drudge, not because they are conservative (WSJ is a world-class conservative organization), but because they are propagandistic. It tarnishes their reputation when they put O'Keefe on their frontpages.--Smghz (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This will probably get a lot of heat, but although I agree with Fox News, Breitbart, and Drudge being heavily biased towards the right, NYT, WAPO, and NPR are clearly biased towards the left. I agree that they are more reliable sources, but I just wanted to point out that objectivity doesn't really work on either side in this case. Jdcomix (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but it doesn't take much of a brain to know you shouldn't make a headline glorifying a guy with negative credibility. --Smghz (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is very much down in the weeds, and very far away from the purposes of this discussion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would not say any of those news sources are "biased" (especially NYT, Post, NPR, and Fox News). They all mostly report the same news, its just that the reporters just have political prefrences and that shows. Its not like they are REAL fake news. The only real fake news outlets that I can think of are Alex Jones and Project Veritas.--ANDREWs13 (talk) 00:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Project Veritas or James O'Keefe. No likelihood of long-lasting independent notability of those recordings independently of their author. — JFG ^talk 14:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to CNN controversies. The article is much more than stub-length, the subject has been cover by multiple reliable sources, and CNN's low credibly has been a big discussion in several significant and reliable media sources. Would definitely be important to be included on Wikipedia in some way or another. editorEهեইдအ😎 13:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To CNN controversies because this was a small "controversy", if you can even call it that. It did not "expose" much (part 2 nothing). And Project Veritas is very biased, and they have been discredited many times. This sloppy Hit piece on CNN does not deserve nor need a whole article.--ANDREWs13 (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It is interesting, but not of great note; it is likely that few will recall this episode a year from now. It will in the future probably be of relevance to the story of James O'Keefe, but not particularly pertinent to the story of CNN or to the fate of America. There's no reason it can't be incorporated into the O'Keefe article alongside his other work. Cpaaoi (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the strongest terms: The controversy has received widespread media coverage from every major outlet, and the coverage is ongoing. The POTUS and other administration officials have directed the public to view the videos. A rapist should not go free because the victim was a call girl, and O'Keefe's undercover work should not be ignored because he has been criticized for poor journalism.Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete primarily per WP:TNT. Part of the page is promotional for O'Keefe's work, the rest is biased against him. There's no suitable redirect target for this term; I'm not opposed to moving any content to James O'Keefe or Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is about a video created by a person known for creating heavily edited videos to purposely mislead. Even if that weren’t true, what’s the importance? Some possible grumbling by staff? WP:UNDUE I also think there are BLP issues with including secretly recorded quotes that were likely taken out of context. Objective3000 (talk) 10:47, 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 redirect to One Rank, One Pension. I've taken AustralianRupert's suggestion in tandem with the comments of other editors while closing this discussion as a redirect. If any administrator wishes to delete the history of the redirect, they are free to do so. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One Rank One Pension Scheme[edit]

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

Essentially the same as One Rank One Pension -- same material, and both essentially advocacy at that. I think the first step is to reduce the number of articles. Possibly they should all be rolled into a section in Pay Commission and, possibly for the details Sixth Central Pay Commission . The context for the advocacy seemed very unclear, but I think it is about a plan to pay pensions to retired army officers at the same rates as police officers, with some added complications, including a claimed inequality for the few hundred army officers at the highest ranks. DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- excessive as One Rank One Pension already exists. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:54, 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 02:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unnecessary as any relevant information should be covered in One Rank One Pension. I guess in theory this could be a redirect, too, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination, this seems to be a duplicate of an existing article. Anotherclown (talk) 05:34, 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 speedy redirect to Senioritis. Boldly redirecting to senioritis, essentially the same thing and well-sourced (well, sourced anyway) that could be expanded if sources appear for this neologism Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eotis (endoftermitis)[edit]

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

Is this a real disease? Or is it an internet joke? There are some sources, but none are reliable. Adam9007 (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable neologism. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTURBANDICT.- Mr X 02:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Bradberry[edit]

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

Paid editor are making the contribution. Similar to Keith Ferrazzi . making wiki spam host for such people. This seems unnecessary and merely personal promotional articles. there are press coverage, but not because person is really encyclopedic significant. Wikipedia considered as Blog host in this case. Light2021 (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any WP:SIGCOV of this guy. He seems to have written a lot of articles, some in major publications, but none seem to be about himself as a person. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bradberry is a lot like Keith Ferrazzi - his main notability is for having a NY Times best seller (in Bradberry's case Emotional Intelligence 2.0), which he parlayed into a consulting career with speaking engagements and many published articles that are shared throughout social media. The concept of emotional intelligence in business is a category that he created. I don't know the rule of thumb for author notability, but I do know that Harper Lee and JD Salinger were considered notable after one book. I'm certainly not comparing their societal impact, but you can Google Travis Bradberry in quotes and get almost 2.5 million hits. Harper Lee gets you 433K. Bradberry's book has almost 1,000 reviews on Amazon and is still ranked in the top ten in several business categories, after almost exactly 8 years, and is currently Amazon's #262 book overall. I just spent a half hour looking for good sources of media coverage, and found a lot of podcasts and panel appearances. I'll keep looking when I have more time. I may put in a section about his activities as a speaker and panelist, and source it with links to the more well-known forums and shows he's appeared at. Timtempleton (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the difference is that Harper Lee and JD Salinger have received significant coverage as individuals (e.g. biography and profiles). I think you make a good case for the notability of Bradberry's book but not Bradberry himself. - GretLomborg (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is the crux of the discussion. My argument in support of his notability is for the work he's done to promote the concept rather than just publishing the book and waiting for people to read it. He would not have the search visibility if he was a recluse like Harper Lee and JD Salinger. If we're going to keep the article the challenge will be quantifying that effect which I will take a shot at and hopefully move the needle a little bit. . Timtempleton (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's not notable because I see no evidence of a WP:RS saying to itself "people need to know more about Travis Bradberry, the person!" and then writing an article with WP:DEPTH. What I see is a popular book and a lot of articles with his byline. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think rather than try to make a case for notability by adding info about being a public speaker, which I think would be considered promotionalism to casual readers, I added a sentence in the lede about his authorship of articles for online magazines. Still a bit promotional, but I think it makes a better case now for notability. I also see some minor coverage that I missed before - will add. Timtempleton (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a couple of more items of media coverage independent of the book. You have to google his name and the title of the publication since there are so many links for his speaking and blogging. His bio says he was covered in the Wall Street Journal but I don't subscribe. If anyone reading this does, can they Google him there? Timtempleton (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete & optionally redirect name to Emotional Intelligence 2.0~~. The article is highly promotional, while the subject is not notable outside of the book. Wikipedia does not need two articles on these closely related topics. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect wouldn't work in this case because of the emotional IQ assessment, which was the new info I found and added. It's independent of the book. But I just went to his Amazon page and saw that he's written four other books. [[24]] I'll add them to the article. Timtempleton (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then. Overly promotional and no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. probably as speedy G11. Regardless of notability, which is a guideline and subject to valid disputes about interpretation, NOT ADVOCACY is a basic principle, and articles whose purpose and effect is advocacy must be removed. Otherwise, NPOV fails, and we are no longer an encyclopedia , and we might as well let Amazon handle our coverage of authors and books. I can find no direct evidence Bradbury's principal book was ever on the NYT list--and I am not sure I would accept the self-help section of that list as a criterion for notability . The book is self published. I have just listed Bradberry's book Emotional Intelligence 2.0 for speedy G11; and another admin has already deleted it DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 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 keep in one form or another. Same as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nolan Hill. So Why 07:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sage Hill, Calgary[edit]

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

Article about a city neighborhood, which is not a well-established community with a properly sourced or notable history. Per GEOLAND, neighborhoods must meet GNG for a separate article. Article has five sources, all of which are primary (City of Calgary). Searching primarily turns up routine real-estate listings. Insufficient coverage in independent RS. MB 02:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of neighbourhoods in Calgary, as per WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on longstanding consensus that all residential neighbourhoods in Calgary and Edmonton are notable enough for articles. This article was created in good faith based on the precedent that all others had articles. Although a newer neighbourhood, it is no less important than an older established neighbourhood that only has the benefit of more time passed to accrue a more fulsome history. It will accumulate its history over time. Surely some non-City of Calgary sources can be found. If this is deleted on these grounds, surely dozens and dozens of Calgary's other ~200 residential neighbourhoods are eligible to suffer the same fate as well. I'd much rather see a single deletion discussion of a large volume of these similar articles rather than picking them off one-by-one, such as is currently and suddenly the case with this, Legacy, Calgary and Nolan Hill despite years of Calgary residential neighbourhood article stability. Hwy43 (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding consensus that neighborhoods of Calgary are individually notable. If people disagree with that consensus, picking them off one by one is not the solution. Smartyllama (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, picking off non-notable articles one-by-one is standard practice in pruning "nests". --Bejnar (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The consensus is documented in WP:GEOLAND and it does not contain any special exemption for Calgary neighborhoods making them de facto notable.MB 15:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of neighbourhoods in Calgary, there are no independent sources, and the content is not of the sort requiring an article. It may be possible that List of neighbourhoods in Calgary could be developed into an article by consolidating these split-off (content-fork, if you will) articles, and thus improve the encyclopedic nature of the Wikipedia. It does indeed seem to fail GEOLAND. --Bejnar (talk) 05:54, 6 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 Changi Business Park. Subtracting the two WP:JNN / WP:PERNOM !votes, the policy-based argument (WP:ATD-M) was to merge, which the nom agreed to as well. Since Davey already merged the content, only the rest - i.e. redirecting - remained to do. So Why 07:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changi Business Park Bus Terminal[edit]

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

Non notable bus terminal, There's a press release in the article which says it's got a new bus terminal but other than that I can't find any evidence of notability, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 02:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to business park article. Nothing notable for astand alone article.Charles (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merged, FWIW tho I don't mind redirecting however IMHO it should be deleted first to avoid the socks reappearing and reverting, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, bus stations are not notable except in exceptional circumstances, and this does not meet that. Rrachet (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with above, not notable. MB 05:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable station. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. So Why 07:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ZoneMinder[edit]

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

Non-notable piece of software. No independent sources, and a search for them doesn't reveal any either. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Linux Format magazine (issue 110, October 2008, p. 112) has full page tutorial about this application, there are passing mentions in other issues. I will look for online sources later. Pavlor (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Linux Format would review any software for any Linux distribution, good, bad or indifferent, so while it's perfectly acceptable to verify basic facts or to give a reliable opinion on it, I don't think you'd be able to get beyond a basic stub. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linux Format looks like reliable source (published magazine, staff writers, broader circulation), I don´t share your summary dismissal of platform centered magazines. Pavlor (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it wasn't. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Online sources: [25] (infoworld.com), [26] (heise.de; short news), [27] (online version of the big article in LinuxUser magazine), [28] (online version of the article in Linux-Magazin magazine). Pavlor (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of coverage in reliable sources to estabilish notability. Pavlor (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So go and improve the article with them, otherwise the AfD won't close as "keep". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the way the AfD closing works. But yes, using sources I listed to improve the article is on my to-do list - probably not before this weekend. Pavlor (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N.b. Per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That might be what the book of rules say, but on a pragmatic basis if people supply trivial passing mentions in sources, without bolstering the article, you end up with an AfD closing as "no consensus" with an article that still looks rubbish. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I promised, I updated the article with sources listed above. Note my English language skills are weak, someone should "anglicize" text I wrote - if the article is kept of course. Pavlor (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not significant enough to adhere Wiki standards. Light2021 (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: I found this book source, but that is certainly not enough and might not even be much of anything. SL93 (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93: Publisher is Lulu Press, Inc. = "an online print-on-demand, self-publishing and distribution platform". This company will publish anything you throw at it, so not much RS for Wikipedia. What about the sources I posted above? Pavlor (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep: My vote is changed to keep per those sources. SL93 (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You must be joking about such sources, Some random book published by to promote something, only one source does not make anything to Encyclopedia significant. else we will be writing thousands of articles here with one source alone. We are not making journals, books or blog here. Light2021 (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? My keep isn't even based on the book source at all. Look at the sources provided further up. SL93 (talk) 04:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources mentioned isn't notable as per wiki standards. All article has one para to write about? what we are creating here? Encyclopedia or directory. If we have to use such sources as notable, we would be creating articles filled with with spam. Check this : Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed Light2021 (talk) 04:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do me a favor and stop being so combative? I'm not changing my opinion. SL93 (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't, you are free to vote your opinion by sources, I can only present Wikipedia guidelines or my perspective. Choice is yours. ignore or accept. its your call. thanks. Light2021 (talk) 04:47, 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 NVA Holdings. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NVA Entertainment[edit]

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

Should merge into NVA Holdings. Not independently notable. and not referenced. Rathfelder (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to NVA Holdings; not independently notable. Might as well Delete before redirecting -- no value in the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NVA Holdings. No indication of independent notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:26, 6 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. (non-admin closure) f e minist 10:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VPNBook[edit]

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

The VPNBook wikipedia article is a promotion of VPNBook violating NPOV also wikipedia is not a How To Manuel Jonnymoon96 (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:32, 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 05:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not finding sufficient in-depth coverage of this product to meet WP:CORP. There are quite a few references in the current article but most are dead links or links to the product's own website or are generic articles describing how to set up a VPN in various OS's. Neiltonks (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, throughout coverage from a review in the PC Magazine, as well as on the numerous other places. There is a problem of users adding junk to the article, so I suggest removing those bits. The article passes the threshold of notability, because of the number of reliable sources. 109.93.178.88 (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PC Mag review is good, but I can´t say the same about other sources in the article. My search found nothing substantial so far. Pavlor (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about Tech radar? 109.93.178.88 (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good one. Pavlor (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree that this is biased article (POV) because it just describes the platform and shows both positive and negative critics, keep it per WP:GNG and WP:RS. I've removed the unnecessary content that other users have added to the article, added some review. Vs⁶ ₅⁰⁷ 12:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews by pcmag.com and techradar.com are for me good enough to demonstrate notability. Pavlor (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it for now. Not too many, but still enough sources. 185.104.187.59 (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 07:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Multiple Sclerosis Association of America[edit]

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

Borderline GNG - there's many primary, but not obviously passing WP:NCORP. (Recreated at The Multiple Sclerosis Association of America because Multiple Sclerosis Association of America has been 3x deleted G11)
Listing to decide on notability, and if failing reccd salting here too. Widefox; talk 21:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NCORP (only trivial mentions are there and no in-depth coverage). Article in its current state does not make any claim of significance either. — kashmiri ^TALK 00:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently not getting much attention in the news. Still there is coverage with more than trivial mention. I find some coverage in books, frequently listed as a resource with a short description of services it offers: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] Coverage in some other pubs: [35] [36] [37] Gab4gab (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's noting here that constitutes a claim of notability and nothing found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment sources and app have potential for NCORP - suggest WP:AFC (or WP:USERFY to User:Kaitlynmsaa or someone who wants it). Widefox; talk 18:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to creator. I do not find significant coverage in the sources Gab4gab lists, just things like the mention of MSAA's patient app, My MS Manager. While it is possible that a resolute library search might turn up enough for an article, I haven't seen adequate evidence of it yet. With that caveat, I'd go with Userfication, giving the creator another chance, no guarantee. --Bejnar (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The guidance on what qualifies as 'significant coverage' is rather vague, leaving me uncertain. Still I'd like to mention a couple things. The first book source I listed has over two pages covering the MSAA. The Multiple Sclerosis News Today is an independent source which has many non-trivial articles covering MSAA as well as other multiple sclerosis organizations and related news. This [38] search of their site (some but not all results address MSAA) could provide material to expand the article. I have no objection to Userfication if the creator is interested. Gab4gab (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Multiple Sclerosis News Today and dozens of other <disease_name> News Today portals [39] run by BioNews Services actually pull nearly all of their content from the websites of disease-specific charities. Hence MSAA's name there. But being mentioned on those portals should not confer notability. — kashmiri ^TALK 17:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest discounting such churnalism as primary sources which don't count for notability. Considering the org age (and admittedly topic seems WP:USEFUL), I'd prefer to give source finding a chance. Note creator has COI and so far refuses to engage as creator of Draft:Multiple Sclerosis Association of America, Multiple Sclerosis Association of America. Widefox; talk 11:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a fairly small (around $11M in revenues) and seemingly unremarkable non-profit with no claim to notability, no reason to expand, no apparent owner. --Lockley (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hold the phone — this non-profit was organized in 1970 — which is damned near half a century ago. I'm seeing 70K G-hits for the exact name of the organization. It beggars belief that this group doesn't pass GNG. Searching... Carrite (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hmmmm, Newspapers.com is slim pickings indeed. I did find THIS mentioning the group from a 2002 piece on the launch of Charity Navigator:

CN rates nonprofits on a scale of zero to four stars. Nearly 70 percent of the charities evaluated so far have ratings of three stars or better. Only 23 received zero stars. Several in this dubious category are what Stamp calls "sound-alike" charities, including the Multiple Sclerosis Association of America (MSAA). Some givers confuse that charity with the four-star National Multiple Sclerosis Society. MSAA is spending somewhere around 30 cents on the dollar for actual research, and "the rest is just spent on direct-mail campaigns," Stamp says. "It's clear we didn't need the MS Association of America."

I'm not spotting any histories of the organization counting towards GNG and most of the news coverage I'm seeing relates to their fundraising rather than programmatic efforts. Carrite (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have scratched my "userfy" !vote; having been convinced that this fails WP:GNG, and as stated in that comment above. --Bejnar (talk) 05:24, 6 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. postdlf (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network Arabic[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 02:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnecessary WP:CFORK of another article, seems to be mostly minutia sounding like TV Guide. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CFORK. We do not require a separate listing of every broadcast of a TV network per region. Ajf773 (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pete Wylie. So Why 07:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josie Jones[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable musician. Quis separabit? 23:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's notable and the article has reliable sources. Diako ^{« Talk »} 08:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's one reliable source, a local newspaper story. She may have been a minor local celeb, but that's not normally enough to meet WP:BIO, especially when she could be covered in the articles on Wylie or Wah. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable musician; no assertion of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep. She is notable. Or at the most, she links to Pete Wylie.PeterMan844 (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 talk contribs 00:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Considering the argument that she can be covered in articles about Pete Wylie or Wah!, should the content be merged to one of those articles if consensus is that she does not merit a stand-alone article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Pete Wylie. Most certainly not notable in her own right. --Lockley (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Pete. We can have an RfC to determine which is better. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 17:38, 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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The result was no consensus. There is a consensus that the article in its present state is full of buzzwords and jargon and needs some adjustment to be comprehensible to the ordinary reader, however there isn't any real agreement on whether this is a notable concept that could theoretically have a decent article written about it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benefit dependency network[edit]

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

Unreliably sourced clusterfuck of buzzwords that is completely impenetrable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what does this even mean exactly? Legacypac (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the current article is somewhat buzzwordy, Benefit dependency network is a buzzword that is recognized by RS. As this is a buzzword, all be it defined by other buzzwords currently, that is buzzing around in RS, we should have an article. Specifically a quick google-scholar check shows use of this term by approx. 42 different articles, and google-books shows approx. 18. Parsing through the buzzwords, BDN seems to be a way of visualizing current capabilities and changes thereof that might lead to benefit(s), and would seem to be used mainly in Information Technology when assessing potential changes to an IT environment or when attempting to improve (benefit) the environment via some changes.Icewhiz (talk) 10:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it with {{jargon}}, for what it's worth. I suppose it applies. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted, search finds many references and examples. Important because it is one of the few (if only) approaches that visualizes WHY rather than HOW of change. The whole area is full of buzzwords but that is our challenge to explain isn't it? David Slight (talk) 17:26, 12 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) 01:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a single article in Harvard Business Review isn't enough for notability, is there a second credible (and independent) source that also uses this term? Power~enwiki (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few book and scholar hits. e.g. - [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]. And this is far from a complete list. This jargony buzzword is live.Icewhiz (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are plenty of reliable sources out there that the article could and should be using. Obviously it's not been well written, but that isn't the criterion. A BDN is a business-oriented method of what engineers would call goal modelling, an "objective" being a top-level goal, and a "benefit" being a subgoal. Analysing such things is at least as useful in business as in engineering, and it is of encyclopedic interest. Enough said. I think I'll add an example diagram to the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:59, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voylla[edit]

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

nominating because nothing is improved in last 6 month. conflict of interest to highly promotional. Article is mere reflection of press coverage and used for advertising only. Light2021 (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:PROMO on an unremarkable tech startup. Copy includes: "Fashion jewelry market in India is highly fragmented and the size of the opportunity is estimated at USD 2.4 billion. The growth rate for fashion jewelry is forecasted to be higher than that of precious jewelry at 22% CAGR in the next three years!". Essentially an investment prospectus. Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST to house companies' promotional messages. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:58, 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 01:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional text unsuitable for an online encyclopaedia. Quis separabit? 02:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) f e minist 10:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election, 2017[edit]

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

This was a WP:ROUTINE event, in contrast to the October 2015 Speaker election, which was anything but routine. Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG for lack of coverage and continuing of the status quo (WP:LASTING). – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to 115th United States Congress. Argument as per nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While this was a regular, scheduled event with no dramatic or unexpected outcome, it was nonetheless an event of broad importance, extensively covered in the media. Carrite (talk) 15:36, 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 01:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Event was extensively covered in the media. Smartyllama (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The event officially determined Ryan's important role and the levels of public opposition to the major candidates. -- econterms (talk) 08:02, 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. Seems like a pretty clear keep. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Underdark[edit]

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

This currently doesn't establish notability. There is just one good source, but that alone is not enough. Sort of back and forth on this. For one, it is quite iconic, but simply being iconic doesn't necessarily mean sources exist. It is a common setting so finding proper sources seems like it would be quite annoying even with narrowing down search terms. Either way, you'll be seeing dozens and dozens of single time mentions that will provide no real context. If someone wants to take the time to work on it, I certainly don't mind withdrawing immediately. TTN (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the nominator notes, there are independent sources on this article, although I am not so quick to discount the ones presented so far or to doubt that there are plenty more out there. When this article was first nominated for AFD back in 2008, it was closed as a snow keep, and at that time[47] it had none of these sources at all. I don't see why meeting WP:GNG should be in doubt on this topic, and AFD is not cleanup. BOZ (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is one independent source that deals with real world information. There is not one other source in the article that details anything of that nature. It might not be impossible to source it, but someone has to prove that they do exist. The previous AfD also included the module as part of the article at that point, but that has since been split out. Sources are needed for the fictional location, or if someone wants to merge it to the module, which I didn't really realize existed as of nominating it. If someone does want to merge it, I will also withdraw in that case. TTN (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:AFD is not cleanup. Clearly notable, as it is a major setting that is featured in more than a hundred novels, sourcebooks, comics, boardgames, card games, video games, and other media. —Lowellian (reply) 21:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not being used for cleanup, other than my idea of maybe merging it to the module it after realizing that it exists after the fact. Though deleting and redirecting wouldn't really hurt anything either. There is one source that provides any real world information, and the other two or three third party sources are not used for a real world context. They could be removed without losing any content, so they cannot be counted towards notability, Just because I think that there may be potential doesn't mean it should be assumed to exist just because this may be objectively iconic. That's a pretty common trend, where something is kept and never improved. And that's not because nobody has bothered to work on them, but because it turns out the topic was not actually notable in the first place. I certainly have no qualms if someone wants to prove me wrong, but please don't pretend sources exist without even providing any. TTN (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above Power~enwiki (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all of the above, particularly the clean-up angle. Sources exist. Just because sussing them out may take additional effort, that doesn't mean the article should be held hostage at AFD. Here's one I found after only a minute on io9/Gizmodo. It gets into a decent amount of detail on various aspects of the inhabitants and conditions there. Here is an interview with the producer of a module centered around the Underdark. It's almost certain other high quality sources can be found. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I really have any hope of swaying this AfD at this point, but neither of those would provide any of the needed substance to the article. They would verify that the Underdark does in fact appear in those settings, but neither of those provide actual real world information that deal directly with the topic. You'd have to something like "'generic article' says 'generic by the book statement that provides no particular substance' about the Underdark." That would just be putting improper weight on those sources. You would want to find more articles describing the iconic status of the Underdark, which I'm really not sure exist in enough abundance, or plenty of creative input from the original creators and probably any commentary Salvatore has had on the settting. TTN (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The io9 is a conversation between a journalist and a game designer about the histories of various races living in the Underdark, and the process of adding new content to the setting for the new campaign. I think it's pretty detailed and strongly helps to establish notability. The second one is more passing, true, but again, this was based on a just a couple minutes of effort. More sources can be found. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are plenty of sources with the topic in the title, but that does not mean that they will actually provide any substance to the article. That mentions nothing specific about the Underdark as a whole, so none of that would be included in this article. Anything pertaining to the development of the races belongs in the articles of those races. It mentions really absolutely nothing about the topic in general that could be really even used in this. The only thing would be a note in a development history section that the campaign took place in this setting, which has nothing to do with notability. Please at least find one source that could actually be used. I'm not demanding instant improvement to the article, but I just hate all these conversations where people are claiming there are sources and cannot actually produce a single source that would help the article. TTN (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG, as has been described above. Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete, merge and redirect to Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings. Well, most of the sources are crap, I count only one good source: [48]. Everything else are mentions in passing or primary sources. I couldn't find anything else, through I comment User:Torchiest for digging out [49], which is decent, but has the problem of being part WP:INTERVIEW, were the creators describe their world. I am sorry but I have to concur with the nom that there is not enough sources to establish notability for a stand-alone topic on this. It doesn't matter if there are dozens of games set in Underdark, if there is no analysis of its importance, cultural impact, etc. And please keep in mind that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a valid argument: either find them or they don't exist. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found another source specifically profiling the Underdark on Wired. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another source, at Polygon, which says, "one of D&D’s most well-known realms, the shadowy netherworld known as the Underdark". Seems to strongly support notability with that line. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another source at The Escapist. I understand this one is covering a booklet related to the setting, but it does give some additional coverage to the article topic itself. Lines like "If you're a fan of classic Dungeons & Dragons games, you probably have some fond memories of the Underdark." seem to presume notability. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f e minist 01:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources have been found; also, "analysis of importance and cultural impact" are not required for Notability; the criterion is that the subject be addressed directly and in detail, in independent secondary sources. This criterion is clearly met. Newimpartial (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources are enough for the GNG. And frankly, as gaming slang goes, this one is pretty big. Hobit (talk) 02:59, 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 in one form or another. Even if there is no consensus that all those neighborhoods are notable enough for stand-alone articles, deletion rather than merging is not a potential policy-based outcome (and thus there is no consensus here to delete). Whether this should be merged can and should be discussed at the talk page and/or WP:RM. So Why 07:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nolan Hill[edit]

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

Article about a city neighborhood, which is not a well-established community with a properly sourced or notable history. Per GEOLAND, neighborhoods must meet GNG for a separate article. Article has four sources, all of which are primary (City of Calgary). The article even states the population was ZERO in 2012. Clearly fails GNG. MB 00:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of neighbourhoods in Calgary, as per WP:ATD-M. Source coverage is mostly local and some mentions in Google books exist, but not finding source coverage to qualify a standalone article. There has been development there (e.g. [50], [51], [52]), so it's likely populated now, or will be. A merge will improve the Calgary article, which presently has no mention of this neighborhood. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on longstanding consensus that all residential neighbourhoods in Calgary and Edmonton are notable enough for articles. This article was created in good faith based on the precedent that all others had articles. Although a newer neighbourhood, it is no less important than an older established neighbourhood that only has the benefit of more time passed to accrue a more fulsome history. It will accumulate its history over time. Surely some non-City of Calgary sources can be found. If this is deleted on these grounds, surely dozens and dozens of Calgary's other ~200 residential neighbourhoods are eligible to suffer the same fate as well. I'd much rather see a single deletion discussion of a large volume of these similar articles rather than picking them off one-by-one, such as is currently and suddenly the case with this, Legacy, Calgary and Sage Hill, Calgary despite years of Calgary residential neighbourhood article stability. Also, yes, it is now most certainly a populated neighbourhood. Hwy43 (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned above, consensus is that all Calgary neighborhoods are notable. If people disagree, picking them off one by one is not a solution. And, as Hwy43 mentioned, it's clearly a populated neighborhood, I don't know what nominator is talking about. Smartyllama (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The consensus is documented in WP:GEOLAND and it does not contain any special exemption for Calgary neighborhoods making them de facto notable.MB 15:10, 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 speedy deleted per A7. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 02:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Palms of Long Bayou[edit]

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

Also nominating:

The Villas of Long Bayou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Shores of Long Bayou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Long Bayou (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prod was declined. Non-notable, self promotion. Hirsutism (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Non-notable, non-referenced. reddogsix (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As creator I think that a complex with over 1000 inhabinents is notable. Bayouwatch 2 (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please demonstrate how this meets any of the criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Bayouwatch is editing just fine. Please cool off and do not bit the newcomers Woldpart (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC) — Woldpart (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy Delete - no sourcing whatsoever and no indication of meeting WP:GNG MarnetteD|Talk 01:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This afd is being plauged by socks. There needs be an spi to confirm reddogsix and MarnetteD's puppetry 2-1-1 count PIT bottom 9th (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC) — 2-1-1 count PIT bottom 9th (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Then please file an SPI case ASAP. MarnetteD|Talk 02:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, one has been filed. SkyWarrior 02:04, 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. Note for posterity that reliable sources in languages other than English might yield more material. czar 03:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gireesh Perumthatta[edit]

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

Non-notable martial arts master. No independent sources. (Google search shows no evidence of independent coverage.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News search only found one result, where subject was only mentioned in passing. Seems to fail WP:GNG Jumpytoo Talk 02:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination. High rank and who you rain with have never been indications of notability.PRehse (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant independent coverage to support a claim of meeting WP:GNG and no evidence he meets the notability criteria for martial artists at WP:MANOTE. Rank has never been considered an indicator of martial arts notability on WP. In addition, the article appears to be an exact copy of the only reference given (which is not an independent source), so WP:COPYVIO is an issue. Papaursa (talk) 03:53, 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. czar 03:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sea water gel[edit]

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

Happened across this today. The only references given in the article were an advertisement in a northern European language (Norwegian, perhaps?), two other Wikipedia articles with marginal relevance, and something about Milk of Magnesia being a cure for oily skin. I could find nothing relevant on a Google search for this. All in all, I don't think this meets the general notability guidelines. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Just sales promo by a beauty blogger. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nowhere near notable. There are sufficient existing articles on gel and related topics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable. DaveApter (talk) 15:56, 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.