Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 June	1 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Number of followers does not constitute evidence of notability on Wikipedia, alas Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eian Beron Jr[edit]

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

This is a non-notable person with a YouTube channel who got some trivial mentions in reliable sources and an award from his local library. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Social media personality with over 500,000 combined followers. There are people on Wikipedia for the same reason but with less followers... StarWars96 (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete There is one independent reference however there appears to be nothing else. You can also consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eian Beron (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eian Beron which also resulted in delete. One was deleted as G5 and in the other a couple of socks were voting. A G4 delete seems possible too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here constitutes a claim of notability that meets the standard. Alansohn (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:14, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (Southeast Asia)[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 23:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First AFD was done by a sock, Second was something to do with AN and that nominator wanting to mass delete everything .... Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per:

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

and pending the outcome of:

These articles serve as pointless content forks. Ajf773 (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unequivocally WP:NOT (#4 electronic program guide) ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:38, 8 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shenton Way Bus Terminal[edit]

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

Non notable bus terminal, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NOTTRAVEL.Charles (talk) 10:00, 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) 15:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with above, not notable. MB 05:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one larger article. I am not sure why are so many transport stop articles are being deleted. There is enough information including a photo, coordinates, opening date. This information is historically significant and Wikipedia should try to preserve this. If separate small articles are not possible, I will myself take out time and create one larger article which has all the information. But I am quite disappointed that so much information is being deleted.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already merged the content into List of bus stations in Singapore so that we can at least have one article which contains the information.--DreamLinker (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're being deleted because they're all not notable and all fail GNG, I've now nominated List of bus stations in Singapore (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus stations in Singapore) for the exact same reasons. –Davey2010^Talk 13:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTTRAVEL ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Mz7 (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen J. Robinson[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a local authority councillor and non-winning candidate for election to Westminster. Neither of these are claims that get a person over WP:NPOL, but the sourcing isn't presenting a strong case for a WP:GNG pass either: it's referenced entirely to WP:ROUTINE election coverage and raw tables of election results, with no evidence of anything that would make him more notable than the norm for this level of political office. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:44, 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 speedy keep. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of downloadable songs for Rocksmith[edit]

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

Downloadable content (DLC) cruft, no indication of notability, single source from publisher. Fails WP:GNG and indications that it probably other guidelines such as WP:PROMO (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Ubisoft COI edits/permlink). Bri (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator unanimous keep !votes amongst trusted editors shows that this nom was a mistake; valid SIZESPLIT. Merging this back to the main article would not be desirable. Bri (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is essentially valid PAGESIZE content fork for a list/table split from the main article(s) due to size. In addition, even as a standalone list, it should pass WP:LISTN, as reliable sources regularly have covered the DLC releases of the game: [1][2][3][4][5][6][[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. This was just 3 pages into over 100,000 results in WP:VG/RS's reliable source custom search. This article is watched over by several established editors, as far as the COI/N post goes (As are most of the articles noted there). -- ferret (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Recent COI edits on a 700+ revisions, 5-years-old article are no ground for deletion (WP:NOTCLEANUP). This list seems to meet WP:LISTN, unless Bri is arguing that the entirety of Category:Lists of video game downloadable content and Category:Music video game soundtracks should be deleted?? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least merge. (edit conflict) There are plenty of hits for each one of these content packs from WP:VG/RS: AFI, Iron Maiden, Maroon 5, Radiohead, REM, Smashing Pumpkins... At the very least, there are enough sources for each one (all?) of the packs, though there is admittedly less commentary on them as a group (e.g, [16]). This said, I'd view this as a size split from the main article. The table still needs some columns removed and condensed, but it would likely overwhelm the main article, and contains sourced info. czar 22:52, 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. With no disrespect to Randykitty's interpretation during the nomination and their subsequent comments, consensus here is tending predominantly towards keep. I would suggest that before this article is renominated, at least some discussion on the issues raised by Randykitty are held on the talk page of the said article. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Journal of International Relations & Diplomacy[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.". Article dePRODded with reason "Removing PROD notice; take this to AfD if you feel strongly about it." PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets criterion #2 of WP:NJOURNALS: Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources. Per article: The journal has published articles by Winston Dookeran^[1], Richard Bernal^[2], and others. It has been sourced in a number of academic and popular texts.^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]. (Also, minor point of clarification - article was de-prodded by User:Carrite, not article creator [me]. Not suggesting OP was saying I de-prodded it, just getting ahead of the horse to avoid any confusion.) Chetsford (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Dookeran, Winston (2016). Crisis and Promise in the Caribbean: Politics and Convergence. Routledge. ISBN 9781317157748.
^ Bernal, Richard (2015). The Influence of Small States on Superpowers: Jamaica and U.S. Foreign Policy. Lexington. ISBN 1498508170.
^ Paltiel, Jeremy (2015). Facing China as a New Global Superpower. Springer. ISBN 9812878238.
^ Kaczorowska-Ireland, Alina (2014). Kaczorowska-Ireland. Routledge. ISBN 1317654994.
^ Rewizorski, Marek (2015). The European Union and the BRICS. Springer. ISBN 9783319190990.
^ Castro-Rea, Julián (2016). Re-mapping the Americas: Trends in Region-making. Routledge. ISBN 1317066758.
^ Berman, Eva (2015). Public Administration and Policy in the Caribbean. CRC Press. ISBN 1439892989.
^ Putnam, Lara (2017). Caribbean Military Encounters. Springer. ISBN 1137580143.
^ Nelson, Marcel (2015). A History of the FTAA: From Hegemony to Fragmentation in the Americas. Springer. ISBN 1137412755.

Comment. When Chetsford writes "sourced", they clearly don't mean "has been discussed in depth" but "has been referenced". Hence, in my informed opinion, this journal does not meet NJournals#2. A handful of references to articles in the journal are to be expected. When NJournals#2 talks about "frequently cited", then at least hundreds of citations are meant, not a couple of dozen. That notable people have published in the journal is irrelevant, too: WP:NOTINHERITED. Which is exactly the reason why our journal article writing guide strongly counsels against including "notable authors" in articles on academic journals. PS: Perhaps Chetford can collapse the text/references above, this is already included in the article and makes this discussion rather unwieldy. --Randykitty (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In principal I agree with RandyKitty. In the case of this specific journal, which has published less than a dozen issues, I believe the quantity of referencing (of which the citations represent only a small selection), is sufficient. By not communicating a number-based criteria (e.g. "has been referenced in at least 182 other RS"), NJOURNAL intends to leave it to the evaluative judgment of editors to consider quantity of referencing in relation to volume of issues. Chetsford (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I appreciate that there are many commercial journals out there that are essentially scams, this does not appear to be one. We need to maintain a very, very low bar for journals, in my opinion, because we at WP footnote on sources of presumed reliability; how are we to figure out if this, that, or the other journal is respected or disrespected if we sweep away all the descriptive articles about them??? It doesn't make any sense... I dePRODded this one — while honest people may differ about whether a journal should be included, there's no way that these type pieces should be taken to the cul de sac of PROD to die. I'm satisfied by the array of links above that this is a journal worthy of inclusion under the SNG for journals. Carrite (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: see my remarks above about the "array of links". Maintaining "a very, very low bar for journals" while simultaneously keeping out those that "are essentially scams", introduces a subjective value judgment by WP editors that, I think, is highly undesirable. --Randykitty (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per both others. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:56, 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni Chapel (The Hill School)[edit]

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

This building holds no significance; it is not architecturally significant, nor is it historically significant. It gains no significance from its association with The Hill School. I have proposed that this page be deleted before; my prod tag was removed, the person citing that the page has book sources. However, that book source documents, as its point, insignificant things: the vicissitudes of local life and the average person and community efforts of the small town in which its located. Because it was mentioned in a book doesn't mean it's significant. As well, this page was created by a person that splintered the main article, The Hill School, probably seeking to promote the prestige of the institution. He explained his motives as necessary because of the burdensome size of the article; however, the article did not pass WP:SIZESPLIT, and should not have been split. I strongly urge for this article to be either merged, smerged, or deleted from Wikipedia. Peapod21 (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Of the listed references, only one is a reliable third-party source, and that source doesn't seem to actually mention the chapel. The building itself, while a lovely specimen of its type, does not seem to have any particular notability.PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero evidence of independent notability. The chapel at my old school (founded 627 AD) was built earlier this one, and it has never occurred to me that it might be independently notable. Because it isn't. Narky Blert (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debaser (band)[edit]

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

I found very little about this band in reliable online sources beyond performing at clubs in Toronto. The article says they toured extensively and had singles on charts, but I can't find anything about this. Perhaps another editor will be more successful. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The charting claims in the article are tied to campus radio, meaning !earshot, meaning non-IFPI-certified WP:BADCHART — and nothing else here, neither in the substance nor in the sourcing, improves the basis for notability either. Bearcat (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 22:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:BAND. Article creator only worked on this article and Etobicoke School of the Arts, where the band was formed – I suspect the author was someone who attended the school with the group members. No evidence of notability outside of campus radio and local gigs. Richard3120 (talk) 20:32, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Mozhaev[edit]

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

Does not seem to be enough for WP:NBIO—I couldn't find many sources beyond the Time article Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Even if we got past that, the Time piece raises more questions than answers about Mozhaev's identity and activities anyway. --Lockley (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable; trivial. Kierzek (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - his beard seems to be the most notable part of the individual, probably not quite enough. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:37, 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Campus of The Hill School[edit]

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

This school does not need an individual campus page. It was created, along with multiple other splintered pages, by one user for reasons of promoting the prestige of the school, citing that the size of the main article was too burdensome for the reading. However, the article did not meet WP:SIZESPLIT, and should not have been split. Two pages, History of The Hill School, and Culture of The Hill School, were merged. I strongly believe that this page (which I have already merged the contents with the main article, while adding non-burdensome amounts of text), should be deleted. It has no inherent notability as a location with no notable heavily documented history, and gains no notability from its association with the Hill School. Even schools like Harvard don't have campus pages, and their pages are much longer than that of the Hill! This page is unnecessary, and dripping with promotion. I strongly urge for this page to be deleted. Peapod21 (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With sections like "Dormitories: The school has a number of dormitories" and "Academic Center: Built on the site of the former Middle School, it is the main academic building," put it out of its misery. The school campus fails WP:GEOFEAT. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Hill School#Campus. It should be discussed somewhere, but it doesn't deserve its own article. Smartyllama (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)e[reply]
Delete. Promotional/forking cruft. No reason at all for this, or even for a redirect. Anyone who wants to learn about The Hill School should be able to find it easily enough. The school I attended (article - 14 screensfull) has 52 people categorised as having articles (and I know of another one who could be, but it's not in their Wiki article so I'll respect privacy), and it has just the one article (which is all that it needs). Next up: Staffroom of The Hill School, Classrooms of The Hill School, Playground of The Hill School, ...? Narky Blert (talk) 00:00, 10 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. I gave User:Equanimous1's comment somewhat reduced weight; they are the creator and major contributor to the list, and looking at their contribution history, it's obvious they have an extremely narrow focus on physical therapy topics. Neither of those things are bad, but indicate that they may not have a completely dispassionate view. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of physical therapy schools in the United States[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTLINKFARM Ajf773 (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of USA-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SSEFAR and WP:LISTN. While individual physical therapy schools are components of universities and colleges, and might not be considered notable apart from the college, as a group they are notable. Almost all of these provide doctorate-level degrees (there is one exception). This is not mere advertising or promotion. Many are prestigious universities with highly-regarded physical therapy programs. Certainly remove any unaccredited school that is sneaked into the list, but otherwise this seems a notable and worthwhile addition to WP, in the same way that we include lists of engineering schools, medical schools, law schools, pharmacy schools and so on. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is silly. There are lists of several different types of schools on wikipedia. The general public is likely to look for a list of those schools and one would expect for wikipedia to have a list of such schools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equanimous1 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is NOT a directory nor is it an enrolment guide. It is an encyclopedia. Ajf773 (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 21:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and no evidence that WP:LISTN is satisfied. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:PROMO (with all the ext links) and WP:LISTN failure. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here suggests WP:LISTN and the structure looks like WP:PROMO. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:50, 8 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Reisch[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aren't the Annie's a notable award? I think I've seen a number of articles on winnners. Mduvekot (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm basing my nomination on the fact that the award was shared between the whole team and on the lack of coverage of Reisch. You're right that the award is an important point to be examined in this discussion. Boleyn (talk) 16:00, 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 00:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 21:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kaschalk[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 04:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: done some more BEFORE searching, and listed two passing mentions that fails NACTOR. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 21:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's got some passing mentions and has been quoted in print[17][18][19] but I don't think that's enough to meet WP:GNG. His award wins were among a group of people, and you have to ask in such circumstances whether the notability attaches to every individual, to the team, or to the film. Mention the wins and the people in the article on the film, but I don't think anything else is quite justified. Unless there are more in-depth sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:58, 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Berrent[edit]

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

Delete or redirect to Cirque du Soleil -- insufficiently notable performer in his own right. Maybe just too soon. Quis separabit? 04:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 02:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 21:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ENT and there is no mention of him in Cirque du Soleil. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The arguments are all over the place and not really pointing to any conclusion. I suggest waiting a bit before retrying. At this time, there isn't a clear consensus and leaving it open another week isn't likely to change that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Hall Boat Club[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with the following rationale "remove prod &c.". Which, sadly, doesn't explain anything. Why should we keep this entry of what seems to me is an organization that fails GNG? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:50, 23 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)} 10:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we have Category:Rowing clubs of the University of Cambridge, then I think we have to accept that each college will have a club, and that each provably existent club belongs on WP. We certainly shouldn't make an editorial choice that only favoured colleges are recorded. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is only an illustration of how much more YELLOWPAGE-like spam we have to delete. We need to start somewhere. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic passes WP:GNG. See also WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. Andrew D. (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument. You need to say why. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of specific reliable, secondary sources would help
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 21:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "One of the youngest and smallest" clubs is not exactly a claim to notability. The article is mostly self-cited & reads like it came from the club's Facebook page. No encyclopedic relevance here. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing may be difficult, because most citations are likely to be only in print. Anyone who thinks that any Cambridge college boat club is non-notable knows nothing about Cambridge University. (Full disclosure: I studied at another college, and had no interest whatsoever in rowing.) Narky Blert (talk) 00:15, 10 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Society of Belgium[edit]

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

Old prod, so now we are here. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. 'nuff said. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:45, 23 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)} 10:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 21:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Aloneinthewild (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ditto. Bondegezou (talk) 22:41, 8 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 19:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Łukasz Sosnowski[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Graylawnxr with the following rationale "collecting more sources, going to add them soon". Unfortunately, he stopped being active after that, and the references in the article are still poor. I am afraid this as WP:TOOSOON at best. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 21:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable. Certainly with the air of a resume, none of the credits rise to notability. --Lockley (talk) 07:53, 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 Withdrawn. Procedural close due to original IP being blocked via the Checkuser tool. No action due to no participation other than a single sock puppet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Watch (band)[edit]

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

Completing nomination per WP:AGF on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale from the talk page is copied verbatim below. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

deproded - lacks notability. majority of sources including progarchives.com are unreliable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.25.115 (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 15:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 21:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Taylor[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL Local officials do not merit an article unless they have significant coverage. His coverage is strictly local and routine. Rogermx (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 21:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Binghamton NY is not a large enough city to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its city councillors per WP:NPOL — only major, internationally famous metropolitan global cities get that privilege — but the sourcing here evinces neither the volume nor the geographic range needed to cross from routine coverage and into notability territory. Every city councillor in every town or city on earth could always show five pieces of local coverage — what we require to deem him notable would be that the coverage showed him to be significantly more notable than the thousands upon thousands upon tens of thousands of other municipal councillors in the world, but nothing here is accomplishing that at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Binghampton has less than 50,000 people. He is way, way, way below the notability threshold for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Ogah[edit]

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

As a music artist, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Promotional materials about his songs, download links and being a "fake housemate" are what I could find. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 21:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough evidence of significant notability. Poor sources. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability high on question. Light2021 (talk) 18:33, 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 List of World XI wicket-keepers. No consensus as to the remainder without any prejudice to relisting; these were a late addition to this AFD by a different editor than the nominator (who didn't even agree they should have been added here). Modifying AFDs to add nominations after discussion has already progressed on the original nomination is generally not a sound practice. postdlf (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of World XI wicket-keepers[edit]

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

A clear redundant content fork of both List of World XI Test cricketers and List of World XI ODI cricketers. I have made one small edit to both of those pages to mark wicket-keepers in the lists, and now all information presented in this table is available in those ones. There is clearly no need for a 'list' which is actually two mini-lists containing a total of three players. Harrias ^talk 20:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is redundant to have it now.Greenbörg (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the best solution in this case. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because we are using daggers to identify who is wk in their respective lists:

Comment I think we are using tables of catches and stumps table for almost every list. We only need to made minor edits and things will wrap up. Why not nominate remaining too? Greenbörg (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I would rather you didn't add more. World XI is a clear case where the parent lists are high quality and include all the information for an obviously undersized content fork. The ones you've added so far I can probably agree with as similar cases, although the parent list is not always of such good quality. List of Australia Test wicket-keepers and List of Australia Test cricketers is a very different argument though, and not one that should really be conflated with this. Harrias ^talk 08:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of World XI wicket-keepers per Harrias above and delete List of East Africa ODI wicket-keepers. Strong keep all the rest. Rationale is that the World XI was a one-off team that may never be formed again and East Africa was a short-lived confederation that will never be revived so those two lists have no growth potential. The others are current international teams which will continue. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the single article nominated. The other articles which a different user has appended should be discussed separately, and should be a Keep until that happens. Johnlp (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nominator's rationale. There is no need to have standalone articles which basically say X and Y are the only players to have kept wickets for Z team. Dee 03 14:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as above, none of them are needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:47, 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 merge to TAP Pharmaceuticals. Per WP:COMMONNAME, this looks more like the logical location. (non-admin closure) Triptothecottage (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TAP Pharmaceutical Products[edit]

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

Same organisation as TAP Pharmaceuticals. Should be merged. Rathfelder (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom - the two articles contain largely the same content as one another. GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 21:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. This is a footnote in the TAP Pharmaceuticals timeline.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as stated above. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:21, 8 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 SM Prime Holdings. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SM City[edit]

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

Article is almost the same as SM Prime Holdings and SM Supermalls. This article can be merged or deleted. BugMenn (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. BugMenn (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.. BugMenn (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SM Prime Holdings. As pointed out, it's more or less the same entity: so per WP:ATD. — fortunavelut luna 16:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SM Prime Holdings, which is what I originally suggested the nom do. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Ajf773 (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthology Recordings[edit]

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

Blatant advert, self-referenced, catalog, speculative future catalog... how has this article survived 9 years already??? Cabayi (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Mexican Summer, the parent label of Anthology. BTW here is Anthology's page about itself: "Anthology Editions uncovers and fashions cultural narratives as books, music collections, online experiences, and exhibitions. Stories of every caliber and color communicate and resonate within the new canon Anthology Editions seeks to establish." --Lockley (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mexican Summer starts "Mexican Summer is an independent record label founded by Kemado Records" - the first substantial edit was by User:Jasonkemado. While I was attracted to your idea of merge/redirect initially, it looks like a cluster of WP:PAID advertising by a spammer to me. Cabayi (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right. --Lockley (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non-notable advert indeed. Sample copy includes: "Its ambition is to explore the scope of our musical heritage without limitation to genre or form!" The rest of the article is similar. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 9 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Michael's Bus Terminal[edit]

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

Non notable bus terminal, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 20:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NOTTRAVEL. It's just a bus stop.Charles (talk) 09:59, 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) 15:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with above, not notable. MB 05:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one larger article. I am not sure why are so many transport stop articles are being deleted. There is enough information including a photo, coordinates, opening date. This information is historically significant and Wikipedia should try to preserve this. If separate small articles are not possible, I will myself take out time and create one larger article which has all the information. But I am quite disappointed that so much information is being deleted.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already merged the content into List of bus stations in Singapore so that we can at least have one article which contains the information.--DreamLinker (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're being deleted because they're all not notable and all fail GNG, I've now nominated List of bus stations in Singapore (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus stations in Singapore) for the exact same reasons. –Davey2010^Talk 13:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah characters#Sardar Roshan Singh Harjeet Singh Sodhi. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gurucharan Singh[edit]

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

Non-notable actor, reliant on unreliable sources (instagram, imdb & actor's own website) Cabayi (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The subject is well-known for his role in the Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah, but that's it. So, he fails WP:NACTOR, as multiple notable roles are needed for that. But the topic-specific guidelines are there to indicate whether a subject is likely to meet WP:GNG or not. I could find only three reliable sources which are dedicated to him – The Tribune (Chandigarh)—[20]; Dainik Tribune—[21]; Dainik Bhaskar—[22] – although they give all relevant details of his early life & career. I guess redirecting the page to Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah seems appropriate till he gets a couple of other notable roles. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Weak Delete Even I would suggest to redirect the article to Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah or if appropriate List of Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah characters. The subject is well known for Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah as Roshan Singh Sodhi. Redirection would be fine till actor pass WP:NACTOR and GNG.--Elton-Rodrigues 23:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs)
Redirect to List of Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah characters#Sardar Roshan Singh Harjeet Singh Sodhi. As of now, his only claim to fame is playing Roshan Singh Sodhi in Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah, so a redirect to given target would be appropriate until more articles about him come up. Pratyush (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Pretty much like an expired PROD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy San Gabriel[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:ENTERTAINER. - Mr X 19:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice to merging, which can be attempted/discussed through normal channels. postdlf (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries at Warner Park[edit]

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

A list for a particular cricket grounds is over-specialization. I see we have others. I don't thing they make any sense either. A list by team, that would make much more sense DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is wrong. Citing the main international stats for a particular cricket ground is very precious. If you think it is no point, so according to your view, citing centuries for cricketers is also not worth. So delete all the centuries cited in each players' article. Providing centuries of each venue is worth just like a player scores a century to his career. Also, it is about international matches and international centuries. I don't think any bad about the articles. So keep them and edit in future. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Cricket statistics for particular grounds ("fastest century at X", "lowest score by Y at Z") are kept in the same way as they are for teams, due I presume to historical quirks in the different grounds, which would argue for notability to me. Whether it's an entirely encyclopedic subject I can't be sure, so I'm happy to be convinced in either direction over the course of the AfD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It could be merged to Warner Park Sporting Complex; that's not true of some lists of centuries for other more frequently used grounds, for what it's worth. Afraid I'm not sure if it's encyclopedic either. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know 'other stuff exists' isn't usually an argument against deletion. However in this case it might be. There are umpteen lists of this nature, covering every international cricket ground I can think of (and lots I didn't think of). Many of these lists are long-standing. This suggests to me that there's a consensus that lists of this kind are appropriate for the encyclopaedia. Neiltonks (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not been able to find a similar AfD discussion related to international cricket centuries at a particular ground. Find one if you can. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may not apply in this case. There are other articles too such as List of international cricket centuries at Lord's. Ajf773 (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I can see a lot of space on main article and we can keep this article on the main until it becomes large enough to separate. Greenbörg (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there is no precedent for these "List of centuries at x" articles, I propose delete based on WP:NOTMIRROR as this content can be uplifted from the ESPNCricinfo website. Ajf773 (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:44, 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) 01:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tend towards delete on the grounds of WP:NOTMIRROR, because I don't believe that a list of every century scored in international cricket is notable in an encyclopaedia, and because, in general, the content could be more usefully summarised at the article about the ground. Summarised rather than copied. Unlike the article creator I don't believe, either, that it is always appropriate to add tables of centuries etc... to articles about players - I would much rather see sensible prose summaries in the majority of cases. I could be convinced otherwise if someone can show definitive notability of a list of all scores of greater than 100 (and, by extension, five wicket hauls etc...). Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Warner Park Sporting Complex. Definitely NOT delete because the info is useful but probably in the wrong place. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The last relist has not really made consensus much clearer so I'm relisting this a third time. Consensus seems to be slightly in favor of keeping this in one form or another but further discussion is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 19:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unnecessary cross-categorisation and an indiscriminate collection of information, which Wikipedia is WP:NOT. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article about the ground. Does not justify a separate article. Johnlp (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Bostock[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG per only some WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Has not played in a high enough league and his only awards were conference-based, not an All-American as specified in NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another in the hundreds of NN articles created in open defiance of all notability guidelines (and for which the editor was, all too belatedly, community banned from new article creation), this low-minor leaguer doesn't break the pattern. Ravenswing 03:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 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. The only argument to keep was an appeal to WP:OTHERSTUFF -- RoySmith (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 31 Flavors[edit]

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

Found mostly sources about the unrelated Baskin-Robbins. This group thus fails the notability guidelines. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't just look at bands like Iron_Claw_(band), Stray (band), May Blitz not really known but they still have their own wiki page.

Also Baskin-Robbins is 32 flavors not 31. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fruitloop11 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am unable to find coverage for this band in reliable sources; only torrents and write-ups on blogs and message boards. gongshow talk 01:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnamed studio band which put out two poor-quality albums that have zero mainstream coverage. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:12, 8 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Street Bus Terminal[edit]

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

Non notable bus terminal, Fails GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 18:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prev AFD was in 2005 so isn't worth looking at. –Davey2010^Talk 18:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NOTTRAVEL.Charles (talk) 09:57, 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) 15:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with above, not notable. MB 05:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one larger article. I am not sure why are so many transport stop articles are being deleted. There is enough information including a photo, coordinates, opening date. This information is historically significant and Wikipedia should try to preserve this. If separate small articles are not possible, I will myself take out time and create one larger article which has all the information. But I am quite disappointed that so much information is being deleted.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)--DreamLinker (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already merged the content into List of bus stations in Singapore so that we can at least have one article which contains the information.--DreamLinker (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're being deleted because they're all not notable and all fail GNG, I've now nominated List of bus stations in Singapore (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus stations in Singapore) for the exact same reasons. –Davey2010^Talk 13:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can it be changed to speedy-d now or do we have to wait for this AfD to run its course? ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crownit[edit]

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

Another Funded Indian Startup, created to promote blatantly nothing else. non-significant till date. Light2021 (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- corporate spam on an unremarkable startup. The article states that it's a "app-only merchant discovery and privilege platform" -- what does this even mean? :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ayondo[edit]

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

Blatant Promotion, Corporate Spam, References are highly questionable, Intention to create for promotions alone. Light2021 (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PROMO; this content can just as effectively be housed on the company's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ApeSoft[edit]

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

Promotion and Corporate Spam. Light2021 (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The given references are routine announcements of funding etc. and I am not finding better references which could meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG for this firm. (Note that searches return false positives for a Peruvian Apesoft, Asociacion Peruana de Productores de Software.) AllyD (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intersec Group[edit]

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

blatant Promotion and nothing else. Light2021 (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:CORPDEPTH not met; nothing of significance or notability here. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IObit[edit]

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

Only exist to promote the product and company as well. non-notable. Light2021 (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:PROMO on an unremarkable private company. A minor controversy does not really help. Sources are trivial or passing mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Driver Booster[edit]

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

Only exist to promote the product and company as well. non-notable. Light2021 (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Refs provided are press releases and MajorGeeks which is offers a download of the software and is thus not independent. In any case, only one non-PR ref is not sufficient to establish notability, and a search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA who has edited various IObit product articles so likely promotional. Dialectric (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A case could be made for a merge into IObit too, but there is not much in here to merge besides a basic description of what it is. W Nowicki (talk) 22:26, 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mathieu Brisebois[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE coverage. Most notable individual achievement was Second Team All-Star while in the Major Juniors. However, this is still below the standards of WP:NHOCKEY. Has never played in any league high enough or long enough to establish or presume notability. Yosemiter (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another in the hundreds of NN articles created in open defiance of all notability guidelines (and for which the editor was, all too belatedly, community banned from new article creation), this undistinguished minor leaguer doesn't break the pattern. Ravenswing 03:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 17:04, 9 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Bridge Road Bus Terminal[edit]

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

Non notable bus terminal, Fails GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 17:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NOTTRAVEL. It's just a bus stop.Charles (talk) 09:56, 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) 15:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with above. Not notable. MB 05:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one larger article. I am not sure why are so many transport stop articles are being deleted. There is enough information including a photo, coordinates, opening date. This information is historically significant and Wikipedia should try to preserve this. If separate small articles are not possible, I will myself take out time and create one larger article which has all the information. But I am quite disappointed that so much information is being deleted. --DreamLinker (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already merged the content into List of bus stations in Singapore so that we can at least have one article which contains the information.--DreamLinker (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're being deleted because they're all not notable and all fail GNG, I've now nominated List of bus stations in Singapore (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus stations in Singapore) for the exact same reasons. –Davey2010^Talk 13:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Lefebvre[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only some WP:ROUTINE coverage. Also is well below any criteria in WP:NHOCKEY as both a player and as coach with only being involved in low-level leagues and no awards (winning a low-level championship with a team is not an individual achievement). Yosemiter (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The leagues he's played in (EIHL, Eredevisie) are not ones that confer automatic inclusion rights on hockey players — per WP:NHOCKEY/LA, they can support notability under NHOCKEY #4, "Achieved preeminent honors in a lower minor or major junior league (all-time top ten career scorer or First Team All-Star)", but nothing stated or sourced here passes that criterion. Bearcat (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another in the hundreds of NN articles created in open defiance of all notability guidelines (and for which the editor was, all too belatedly, community banned from new article creation), this undistinguished low-minor leaguer doesn't break the pattern. Ravenswing 03:27, 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Pastime (Band)[edit]

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

Article about a three year old music group. I am unable to find independent reliable sources to demonstrate the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:BAND. - Mr X 17:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unremarkable band & no sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Reads like a fan page. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Spain)[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 17:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network as pure CONTENTFORK. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I wouldn't have an issue with redirecting however most I've nominated are going towards delete so it seems silly to have the odd one or 2 as redirect whilst 6-8 others have been deleted, That aside these articles are sock magnets so if this gets closed as Redirect it would simply be reverted in a months time and ofcourse it could be protected etc etc but that's just a waste of my time and the dealing-admins time so IMHO deletion is the only best outcome (Unless the closing admin wants to delete, redirect and then indef-semi-protect which then I'd have no objections to redirecting...). –Davey2010^Talk 23:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per:

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

and pending the outcome of:

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the person looking for Spanish info about Cartoon Network programs can go the Spanish Wikipedia and [[23]]. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no evidence that this meets the criteria for a WP:Stand alone list. It also does not appear to be discussed at all as a topic. There is no need for a redirect. --Bejnar (talk) 01:51, 8 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Centre Bus Terminal[edit]

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

Non notable bus terminal, Fails GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 16:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NOTTRAVEL.Charles (talk) 09:55, 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) 15:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with above, not notable. MB 05:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one larger article. I am not sure why are so many transport stop articles are being deleted. There is enough information including a photo, coordinates, opening date. This information is historically significant and Wikipedia should try to preserve this. If separate small articles are not possible, I will myself take out time and create one larger article which has all the information. But I am quite disappointed that so much information is being deleted.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already merged the content into List of bus stations in Singapore so that we can at least have one article which contains the information.--DreamLinker (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're being deleted because they're all not notable and all fail GNG, I've now nominated List of bus stations in Singapore (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus stations in Singapore) for the exact same reasons. –Davey2010^Talk 13:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was reviewed at Deletion Review, and they asked I expand on the close. Here are the two statements I gave:

Since people are asking for more, ok: We start with an article that is three short paragraphs, much shorter than the amount of prose that has already taken place here or at the AFD. While Cunard went to great lengths to explain how it received coverage, it simply didn't overcome the arguments about the company being a small, new and not yet notable company. The nomination mentioned the previous AFD (which I did look at) and the early and late !voters had the opportunity to already preview the sources that Cunard presented, as they were the exact same sources given in the previous AFD. The other keep votes were basically saying "enough sources exist" but didn't explain how those sources were adequate, how they actually went into depth; they didn't overcome the claims of the nominator. SwisterTwister gave a detailed analysis of the sources, which raised a number of issues. Interesting, but the other issues were not decisive, although he did echo the concerns of the nominator when it comes to depth of sources, and the sources being primarily focused on financial issues rather than the company. Light2021's contribution was small, but understandable as they had previously gone into great detail on the other AFD, which I took at face value. Xxanthippe's delete vote was also short, but not every vote needs to go into great detail in order to get the point across, that they were not notable yet, which I took to mean insufficient sources to demonstrate notability. The strongest !vote was the nom, which also talks about depth, plus the insufficiency of the sources. ST's argument was also very interesting, even if a bit meandering. Cunard's input was well researched and I don't question the accuracy but reading it, while staying objective, doesn't scream "independent, thoughtful analysis" by the sources themselves, which themselves describe the company as a "start-up", which would naturally raise questions about their enduring notability at this stage, questions that went unanswered.
In response to a question: Dennis, I'm struggling a bit because the community's attitude to notability, and the text of WP:N, seems to have drifted in a deletionist direction over the past few years. When you closed that, were your thoughts more about WP:SPIP? Or more about WP:CORPDEPTH? Or have I just misunderstood?—S Marshall T/C 17:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Both come into play in at least two of the votes. SPIP is always a concern as an editor, but wasn't really a major factor in my decision making, as the comments were mainly focused on CORPDEPTH and sources in general. The idea that this was spam didn't enter my mind, to be honest. The close was actually made easier by Cunard because I trusted him to provide the most solid evidence of notability, conveniently put on the same page. Unfortunately, each of those entries was rather mundane stuff you would see in press releases, which supported the claims of the nom et. al. Things like "Founded in 2015, Moglix has been backed by VCs and industry leaders" or "Moglix recently raised pre-Series A funding from Accel Partners and Jungle Ventures and the funds are being used to enhance the technology platform" which is specifically what CORPDEPTH calls trivial coverage. Nothing in the quotes made me think "The deletes are wrong". There wasn't any single paragraph that clearly made the case for notability and shined the light on the KEEP votes. The quotes simply talked about the company in the exact terms that CORPDEPTH clearly excludes. I would have been easier (and obviously less controversial) to close as "NO CONSENSUS" but that is kicking the can down the road and doesn't reflect what I saw as a policy based consensus. I would agree that WP:N has probably tightened up when it comes to businesses. I would not call that a drift towards deletionism, I think the community has simply grown weary of the spam and has drawn a more definitive "line in the sand" on notability when it comes to start up businesses, and this is reflected in both consensus and the written policies around WP:GNG. I have to use the policy as it is written today, not 11 years ago when I started. But the tightening isn't the issue here, nor any concern about spam, nor did I apply a higher standard, nor did I need to. The lack of sufficient high quality sources was the issue, and specifically, CORPDEPTH was the specific claim that was not overcome in spite of a great deal of effort. (and pardon my wordiness, I've been rather swamped over the last 24 hour, so my prose isn't as concise as I like when I'm a bit rushed) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moglix[edit]

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

An unremarkable private tech company with insignificant funding. Significant RS coverage that would meet WP:CORPDEPTH not found. What comes up is largely PR driven and relates to funding and company aspirations, such as: "Garg, a former Google executive, is positioning his e-commerce firm Moglix for the GST's launch on July 1"etc.: [24] Sources presented at the last AfD are not convincing. Created by Special:Contributions/Kiranhota whose other contributions outside this topic have an appearance of being promotionally driven. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable corporate blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Delete As nominated earlier by me and others. Thanks for AfD. Light2021 (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I did close this as delete, but an user asked for more discussion on my talk page
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Jejani, Abhishek (2016-10-16). "Moglix: Using tech to disrupt distribution". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 2016-11-07. Retrieved 2016-11-07.
  The article notes:
  
  mall and large enterprises have to procure industrial products from 100s of suppliers. Moglix, a business-to-business (B2B) e-commerce start-up, is trying to use technology to disrupt the traditional distribution channels for industrial products.
  Recently, the B2B start-up which specialises in procurement of industrial products such as fasteners and industrial electricals, raised $4.2 million (Rs 28 crore) in a Series-A round of funding, led by Accel Partners, Jungle Ventures and SeedPlus. It had also raised $1.5 million (Rs 10 crore) in November last year in the pre-Series-A round from Accel Partners and Jungle Ventures. Ratan Tata also invested in the start-up in February.
  Founded in August 2015 by Rahul Garg, the start-up caters to around 20,000 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and 100 large manufacturing houses through its platform. It has also partnered with manufacturers and distributors from China and Taiwan.
2. Nair, Sulekha (2016-02-08). "Ratan Tata's 6th investment in 2016 is B2B platform Moglix; founder Rahul Garg 'extremely pleased'". Firstpost. Archived from the original on 2016-11-07. Retrieved 2016-11-07.
  The article notes:
  
  Founded in August 2015 by former Googler Rahul Garg, Moglix is focused on technologically disrupting the B2B industrial products space for suppliers and buyers across the globe. It specialises in B2B procurement of industrial products such as MRO, fasteners and industrial electricals.
  ...
  Moglix recently raised pre-Series A funding from Accel Partners and Jungle Ventures and the funds are being used to enhance the technology platform, build a deep supplier base as well as increase marketing spends across Asia.
  With its pre-Series A funds, the start-up was able to raise its core team from just two members -- Garg and his head of business operations, to a team of 7. It also strengthened its tech platform, says Garg.
  ...
  Moglix has a client base of 100+ companies in the manufacturing sector. These companies typically have a turnover ranging from Rs 50 crore to Rs 1,000 crore.
3. Avvannavar, Umesh M (2016-09-25). "Moglix plans to expand its footprint". Deccan Herald. Archived from the original on 2016-11-07. Retrieved 2016-11-07.
  The article notes:
  
  Moglix, an ecommerce company specialising in B2B procurement of industrial products, plans to expand its footprint.
  ...
  Founded in 2015, Moglix has been backed by VCs and industry leaders. ...
  The company specialises in B2B procurement of industrial products such as MRO, Fasteners, and Industrial Electricals. In order to cater to these requirements, Moglix has partnered with manufacturers and distributors across these categories and is working with several large manufacturing companies to completely transform the business-buying.
4. Banerjee, Sneha (2016-10-04). "Know What Goes Behind Getting 28 Crores As Funds". Entrepreneur. Archived from the original on 2016-11-07. Retrieved 2016-11-07.
  The article notes:
  
  When ex-Google employee Rahul Garg, conceptualized his startup in late 2014, he realized that the global trade of products was still operating in the old fashion, while the internet/ mobile, had led to democratization of the services and mobile app and advertising ecosystem.
  His startup Moglix, is a B2B e-commerce platform, which specializes in B2B procurement of industrial products such as MROs, power tools, fasteners, electrical devices, industrial lubricants.
  ...
  The Firm today announced that it has raised INR 28 crores in Series A round of funding led by Accel Partners with participation from Jungle Ventures and SeedPlus. Moglix has raised Pre-Series A funding from Accel Partners and Jungle Ventures in October 2015 and an undisclosed financial investment in the company by Ratan Tata in February 2016.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Moglix to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All trivial puff based on PR releases. It's known as churnalism. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

As usual COPY-PASTE job, without even reading or knowing where or what source are you copying from ? You seriosuly do not read any of these, just make a lengthy discussion to confuse people as if you are presenting some Detail in depth research or analysis, where you just go to links, copy and paste here. This is ridiculous.

FirstPost - Funding news seriously? Why to make Wikipedia, lets just make it newspaper?
Enterpreneur - Non notable media source as per Wikipedia, Paid blog written in the name of media.
Business Standard: Funding news and read the brochure in media " mall and large enterprises have to procure industrial products from 100s of suppliers"
Deccan Herald : another brochure in media.
Do you seriously read them ? Light2021 (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moglix participants who have not commented here: CNMall41 (talk · contribs), SwisterTwister (talk · contribs), Anilkumatpatel (talk · contribs), Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs), and David in DC (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment -- the above coverage is mostly routine funding news, puffery and PR-driven, as in:

"...focused on technologically disrupting the B2B industrial products space for suppliers and buyers across the globe.
"Moglix recently raised pre-Series A funding from Accel Partners and Jungle Ventures and the funds are being used to enhance the technology platform, build a deep supplier base as well as increase marketing spends across Asia."
"With its pre-Series A funds, the start-up was able to raise its core team from just two members -- Garg and his head of business operations, to a team of 7. It also strengthened its tech platform, says Garg.

This is just from one piece. The above details also highlight just how insignificant the company is (from 2 to 7 people; series A funding; etc). With this amount of people, talking about "disrupting" an industry "across the globe" is peculiar, to say the least. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's definitely coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article is too promotional and poorly written. But that's an argument for editing, not for deletion. I see precisely the same points being made as last November's AfD. (Including my own.) Seems to me they ought to lead to the same result. David in DC (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Responding to a ping based on commenting at first AfD. My !vote remains the same here. There is in-depth coverage that meets WP:CORPDEPTH such as this one in Entrepreneur (written by staff writer) and the ones analyzied by Cunard above. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneur Article Seriously? Not even notable media as per wikipedia guidelines. Its like paying someone to write for yourself in a Online Blog? anything else you found in media, In-depth? Light2021 (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and this is said with a heavy analysis of sources, see the fact 3 sources are in the current articles: All about funding and money reports (and that's considering one of them is Entrepreneur!) nothing significant for what we need here and it's said so in the WP:NOT policies. WeC:3 never at all compromised with their "national publication" coat because this would mean WP:COATRACKing; the Entrepreneur article is indiscriminate coverage about information anyone could find in a press release such as where when and how it performs its business. What we also apply here is WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper, meaning we are not a webhost for whatever the company please to advertise or for its clients, therefore saying we should repeat them is completely inapplicable. Sources above #1 is from a trade-consumer publisher requiring their financial numbers and the specifics (no one knows the company numbers best than them) and #2 is similar except with immediate PR-like paragraphs for each part: Numbers, CEO quotes and their locations, clients and services, same goes for #3 until we find #4 is literally a Q&A profile with the CEO from a trade publisher. These are in fact not sufficient for GNG considering they are primary-sourced information therefore not independent (In order to cater to these requirements, Moglix has partnered with manufacturers and distributors across these categories and is working with several large manufacturing companies to completely transform the business-buying Promotional, anyone?), especially since the oozing similarities in articles were aired months apart. SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 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 Steve Roach (musician). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vortex Immersion Zone[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale is below. No opinion on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fails wp:n (not enough reliable sources)68.151.25.115 (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Steve Roach (musician), same as is happening to the others. Useful redirect, but doesn't meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 06:37, 8 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. Nomination withdrawn. I found one source ^[1] (using Google Books) that proves that the subject is encyclopedic. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure) -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Journalese[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it is nothing more than a dictionary definition (besides the excess examples) and should be deleted per WP:DICTDEF. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 15:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It can clearly be covered in an encyclopedic fashion - there's books written about it[25][26], academic papers[27][28][29], and dozens of articles - and I added a few sentences with 10 minutes's work. Do your WP:BEFORE. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://books.google.com/books?id=mLkbSCeGPcgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Journalese&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC2tHnvO7UAhWFwlQKHW-YCDoQ6AEIJDAA#v=onepage&q=Journalese&f=false

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neurosteer[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:VERIFY. The sources are: 1) a passing mention in a press release 2) Crunchbase profile written mostly by the CEO 3) A fleeting mention in another press release. Even if the company has a potential to be notable, it's WP:TOOSOON. Rentier (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly TOOSOON. There is some news coverage of the company, what is in the article could probably be sourced mostly from RS, but it is still TOOSOON. Icewhiz (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient sources for this start-up. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep; though a bit of a borderline case, consensus is notability via secondary sources is established. I would encourage participants to not engage in meta-discussions on the nature of a nomination or its participants in the future, at least not on the AfD itself. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cane River (film)[edit]

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

Doesn't really seem notable. The sources are really more about the director than they are the film, and 3 of the 5 are obits. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per more than sufficiently satisfying WP:GNG, not to mention WP:NFO #2, the first bullet, due to non-trivial articles demonstrating historical notability. A reading of the sources shows extensive details about the film, only part of which are included here. In addition, this was considered a lost film, so there are yet to be reviews. This is more a product of history than a product of art (at this point). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, WP:GNG states, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Even a director's background is explored (inevitably so in this particular case, really), there is definitely strongly significant coverage about the film as part of that exploration. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: thank you Erik. The NYT article and the discussion about the rediscovery already save it. BTW, fascinating topic: I don't want to do the work for our LSU colleagues, but look at this book, of which I saw at least three or four JSTOR reviews (so it's notable, or its author is), and this. Anyway, movie is notable, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, speedy close, trout the nominator. Given the listed sourcing alone, especially the NYT article, "doesn't really seem notable" doesn't remotely approach being a rational argument for deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh please. Go ahead and trout him yourself if you like--do you want your precious trouting to be done by one of the admins you say treat you so badly? Sad. Ten Pound Hammer, if you want to withdraw, that's fine; I don't believe this was a bad-faith nomination deserving a speedy close, but maybe Erik is a better admin than me. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  You're rather full of yourself this morning, Drmies, aren't you? You're rather plainly more disturbed by my expressed lack of respect for the administrative clique here than you are by actions which dubstantively damage Wikipedia. And let's not forget, while you're throwing shade on me, that you said it was perfectly OK for the notorious sexual harasser Scalhotrod to repeatedly post edit summaries calling me things like "Useless, lazy Editor". But what the hell, some of us animals here are less equal than others, and he was (is?) a buddy of yours. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy? Ich don't think so. You're just being a dick, as usual. You're not treated like dirt--you're just playing the victim. And that's Mrs. Drmies to you. Now go and trout that nominator--don't rely on crooked admins to do your work for you. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hardly perfect. I'll admit I had to swallow a little something before weighing in here as neutrally as I could. I decided to have faith that this topic was indeed notable. (Also, not an admin!) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but there's a difference between a (possible) bad nomination and a bad-faith nomination... Wut? Not an admin? Isn't it time? Ha, now I remember running into you over White savior narrative in film: that was exciting. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zaza (music producer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO with only self-published sources. Issues have not been fixed since the deletion and salting of Zaza (musician), which was about the same subject. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - TheMagnificentist 08:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per G4 by Fuhghettaboutit (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 19:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khushboo Uttam (Singer)[edit]

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

Not a notable singer. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NSINGER. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:08, 30 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)} 12:38, 30 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)} 12:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Khushboo Uttam is currently salted. Look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khushboo Uttam and here. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:G4 applies here. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:27, 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 redirect to Visa policy of Saudi Arabia#Hajj visas. Sandstein 19:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hajj Visa[edit]

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

PRODed this as WP:NOTHOWTO; the article is simply a guide to obtaining a Haj visa. Prod removed by article creator TheLongTone (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:38, 30 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)} 12:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOTMANUAL. Besides, we already have Visa policy of Saudi Arabia#Hajj visas. I would have said redirect there, if it were not for the title's unnecessary capitalisation of "Visa". --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Visa policy of Saudi Arabia#Hajj visas. It's not worthy of its own article, especially in its current form, but if it's discussed elsewhere, this should redirect there regardless of capitalization. Smartyllama (talk) 22:09, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stories of the Year (EP)[edit]

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

Speedy removed on the grounds that having a release on a 'major label' confers notability. Imo its stretching it to breakibng point to call Krod Records a major label... imo they are barely a label. No article on the band, no other claim of notability. TheLongTone (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. This article is part of a walled garden set up around the Kron records label. When I get the time I will almost certainly be nominating some if not all of the pages. The sources are mostly self published or blogs or just track listing. Domdeparis (talk) 00:25, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passing Time[edit]

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

I sppedied this because there is no claim of notability and no article on the band. The speedy got removed.... am I missing something? Is having a snecking cover a claim of notability??? TheLongTone (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage just isn't deep enough. 1 blog and 1 article in a specialist web site is not enough. The kerrang article is not a review it just says listen and tell us what you think. Domdeparis (talk) 12:47, 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. Consensus leans towards delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Track and Field (band)[edit]

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

2nd Article - The Plight[edit]

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

Two versions of the same band. Notability is not inherited from one non-notable band to another. A slight step above WP:YAMB Legacypac (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability for either article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:27, 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) 03:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has coverage such as BBC, Huffington Post, Allmusic bio, MOSH referenced in the articles, just passes WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantic306 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I usually don't like third relists but there is so little discussion here that it seems warranted to try and achieve consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both -- neither one meets WP:NBAND & no sources that discuss the topic sources directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Plight passes criteria 12 of WP:NBAND having a live session broadcast on BBC Radio1. Track and Field have also been featured on BBC Radio1 to a lesser degree. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:11, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Spalding[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An unremarkable entrepreneur and co-founder of a private tech company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes are are trivial mentions or PR driven. Created as part of a walled garden around Raise.com, which also includes another co-founder, George Bousis. Deleted in 2014 and recreated in 2016. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as promotional puff. No improvement since last AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The only parts of the article that are not clearly non-notable are instead clearly promotional. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Although the article is strikingly promotional in tone, there is a kernal of biographical details that can be flushed out of the sources. Regardless of whether there is WP:COI the subject probably meets the WP:GNG threshold.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:30, 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 07:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeyCDN[edit]

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

Typical promotional spam. Forgot that WP is not an advertising medium. Winged Blades^Godric 12:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like spam. Especially since the editor who created the page has been editing other articles to add links to keycdn.com. --ChiveFungi (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While the article incorporates promotional aspects, I would say it is salvageable. A more concerning problem is that it may not meet WP:GNG: I was only able to find one independent source --Hazarasp (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a service provider that is actually "a service of proinity, LLC.. Of the 6 references 4 are from the subject of the article. Builtwith, that the article shows lists the company as 4th, does not verify this that I can see. It actually, with a chart and listing, shows the company lower ranked. Datanyze shows the company with a 4.4% market share having dropped 12,084 websites, as 5th "out of 52 Content Delivery Networks technologies in Datanyze Universe" and 7th in the United States according to the same "universe". There needs to be more coverage than the company advertisement or "Datanyze Universe" or "Built with". I could find KeyCDN info from the company but not on a search. In the worldwide scheme of life it is a tiny company, with no notability for encyclopedia coverage, and mainly self-sourced that does make it an advertisement article. Otr500 (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Also, while Hazarasp mentioned the madlemmings.com article as an independent source, it is actually from a blog post and therefore fails as a recognizable source and fails the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:01, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Crystal Maze episodes[edit]

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

Other lists of gameshow episode articles have been deleted so this should be no different. Already has descended into made up stuff (improvisational lore) and inaccuracy (using rounds instead of zones). Fails W:NOTSTATS Dougal18 (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's no real-world notability of episodes of a gameshow. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

As the author of that article, I understand the notability requirements but wasn't aware we had an unwritten rule about not allowing episode lists for game shows. I'll just save the work and and go with whatever you all decide. -Rolypolyman (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, where are you getting your info. Post a reference so we know it's true. BeanoMaster (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

China PharmaHub Corp.[edit]

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

Promotional, speculative and unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unsourced original research and WP:ADVOCACY. I was not able to find sufficient coverage of this entity to justify an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:38, 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 redirect to Adoption disclosure. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Access to US Adoption Records[edit]

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

Found this article while going through underlinked backlog. This article is not WP:NPOV -- in fact, it is written like an advocacy essay, complete with an image promoting a particular stance. Tonally and stylistically, it needs a complete re-write. Beyond the cleanup issues -- it's my opinion that there isn't any potential for an encyclopedic article on this topic, and the title isn't even a particularly useful redirect. A Train^talk 09:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect - To Adoption disclosure. The subject is addressed there. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adoption disclosure. While it's true that the title probably won't be a useful redirect, they're WP:CHEAP, so it's hard to argue against creating it. If not redirect, then certainly delete, as not meeting WP:NPOV. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asmaar Peerzada[edit]

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

doesn't pass WP:GNG. cited ref are not reliable. Saqib (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:28, 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) 00:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material and WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Seisen Saunders[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable priest. She founded a small retreat. She was the head of an organisation. She gets minor mentions in Buddhist publications. But none of that adds up to notability. Another puff piece from another SPA. A look at the bombardment of sources at time of nomination.

1 Directory listing, Primary source

2 Tricycle: The Buddhist Review is written by the subject

3 Directory listing

4 Directory listing

5 Directory listing

6 Just a quote from her

7 Not in source, Source published 2004, She was certified in 2009.

8 Passing mention.

9 Passing mention

10 Link to below

11 Routine announcement of organisation, looks like press release

12 Appears to be small/self publishing, not a reliable source. No depth of coverage.

13 Exert of above, No depth of coverage.

There is still not enough coverage about her in independent reliable sources. A search of mainstream sources found nothing good. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 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) 00:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indepth, thrid party sources to meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a tribute page / WP:ADVOCACY, cited to directory listings and other sources not suitable for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Last High[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Bombarded with artist talking about the song, primary sources and passing mentions. Nothing independent of any depth about the song. Part of a mass of over exaggerated cruft surrounding this artist created by a SPA. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding significant coverage for this song in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. gongshow talk 02:21, 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) 00:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable single & not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turn Me Out (Logan Lynn song)[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Bombarded with artist talking about the song, primary sources and passing mentions. Nothing independent of any depth about the song. Part of a mass of over exaggerated cruft surrounding this artist created by a SPA. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding significant coverage for this song in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. gongshow talk 02:21, 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) 00:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft. No stand-alone notability here. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gamevillage bingo[edit]

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

An article about a gambling website that does not meet the standards of WP:CORP. The article is sourced entirely to press releases and there is no evident independent coverage of the site or evidence of its notability that I can find. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bingo Magix for a similarly poor article written almost entirely by the same contributor. A Train^talk 08:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo Magix[edit]

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

This article about a gambling website does not pass WP:CORP's standards for notability or even come close. The article's references consist entirely of an award from "a leading online marketing site", a press release, a link to Wikipedia's Public key certificate article (??), and a number of first-party links. No independent coverage is apparent from a Google News search. A Train^talk 08:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PROMO with routine content on where the service is offered. Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST for this company's promotional messages. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And salt Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prit piyu ne paneter[edit]

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

Referenceless article on a topic which is unclear if notable, written in a manner which makes it difficult to understand what the topic is. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 08:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no valid content and most certainly not notable. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have looked for sources, thinking that a "famous drama" from the 1960s should have left some kind of trace in English-language sources, but I've found absolutely nothing. That is, there is a play by that name, and I've found plenty of advertising for a recent production of it; I think this article was created as part of that advertising, and also in order to promote Ragi Jani (there's been several attempts to promote him on Wikipedia before). If reliable third-party sources should appear about the play itself, as opposed to the current production, it would be a good addition to Wikipedia. However, the article would have to be rewritten from scratch in any case. --bonadea contributions talk 08:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote it a bit to make it clear that the article is about the play, not about the producer. Still not notable, though. --bonadea contributions talk 09:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a borderline speedy delete on the grounds that it makes virtually no sense. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it's so unclear I can't figure out which delete sorting pages to transclude this debate onto. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT. There are no sources to establish its notability. This article has been previously speedy deleted twice, but gets recreated. Coderzombie (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be salted. Also, for the record, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hariharmahadev. --bonadea contributions talk 10:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting this investigation. I am more than familiar with various socks attempting to create various versions of Ragi Jani page. Coderzombie (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Salt. --Elton-Rodrigues 20:37, 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 keep. I'm withdrawing this nomination now that more sources have been found. (non-admin closure) KSFT ^(t|c) 02:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Necessity of Secularism: Why God Can’t Tell Us What to Do[edit]

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

As Winged Blades of Godric described here, none of the sources is reliable and independent, and the book does not seem to be notable. Many of the sources are on a website of an organization that the author has a connection to. KSFT ^(t|c) 02:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect – To Ronald A. Lindsay. Book just not notable enough at this point for a stand-alone piece.ShoesssS ^Talk 14:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Not so fast. Let's see what reliable, independent sources have reviewed the book and then decide if it's notable or not.

Araujo, Derek. Review in Free Inquiry, vol 35, issue 2, reprinted here. Araujo is a teaching fellow at Columbia University. His opinions in his review appear to be reliably his own; the fact that the secular humanism website reprinted his review does not contradict this.
Frost, Angela (2015). "Review: The Necessity of Secularism". Arts and Humanities. vol 139, issue 20. It seems we agree this is a reliable source.
Henninger, Jason. Foreword Reviews. November 2014. Professional reviewer for Foreword Magazine. no fee paid by author. Seems a reliable source.
Dawkins, Richard: a brief quote in "paragraph of the week" - certainly an independent endorsement, not proof of notability.

I'd say we have here a bare minimum of reliable, independent sources, with three detailed reviews, meeting the threshold of "multiple reliable sources" for the GNG. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - Not a problem. I am never opposed to keeping a piece or changing my opinion as long as it can be referenced. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those last two sources should be added to the article. Once they are, I have no problem with withdrawing this nomination. KSFT ^(t|c) 19:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KSFT - I've put them in the article for you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:41, 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 Gorkhaland Territorial Administration. Since the content is already merged. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 06:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Regional Political Parties in Gorkhaland[edit]

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

Author already inserted same information in Gorkhaland Territorial Administration. Doesn't merit to have a separate article Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested by nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Author is acting in good-faith to try to get information into Wikipedia but doesn't have a clue and needs advice. Author also created a list of the parties with Goorkhaland misspelled. I changed it to a redirect to the article. Author obviously thinks it is important to get the list (and the list is a useful addition to the encyclopedia) but is trying cluelessly. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 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) 02:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:00, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. J Noxx[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 09:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article now claims U.S. charting but checking what U.S. is linked to we can see it is reverbnation, a badchart. A bunch of links have been dumped into the page but none good, shops, reverbnation, youtube, event listings, datpiff. Nothing good for notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was thinking of closing this as a soft delete but it's been Proded before so that's not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the sake of assisting the closing administrator, the deletion of this article would be in line with BIODEL (the final/third sentence), which you may mention in the close if deemed fit. Thanks. Lourdes 03:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Self[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Not notable trial court judge. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep non federal judge, but the references seem fine to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NPOL-failing local trial judge (for non-U.S. folks, the fact that his jurisdiction covers more than one county/parish doesn't make him "statewide"; that's just how some states' trial-level judicial districts/circuits happen to be set up, and that particular chunk of Louisiana isn't large or particularly significant). - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:22, 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) 00:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just don't think Judge Self rises to notability. --Lockley (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is chief judge of the court and a notable figure in Bossier and Webster parishes.64.134.48.31 (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Witold Chrabąszcz[edit]

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

It is dubious he is notable and the article meets WP:GNG/WP:BIO. There is no in-depth treatment of his life, or anything but few mentions in passing. An interview in (reliable) Polish magazine [30] is not about him, but about the election. Not seeing anything better than few bio blurbs and such. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on the current state of the article, has sufficient evidence of notability. Authoritative Wprost interview with him features 15+ questions that cover both biographical and campaign topics. (In addition to other Wprost mentions.) Substantiated by FEC records and authoritative publications. Google search for "Witold Chrabaszcz" comes up with numerous authoritative sources. Overall - more than sufficient to meet WP:GNG/WP:BIO.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.42.67.15 (talk) 03:14, June 10, 2017‎ (UTC)
- Your best source is still the interview (with all the problems of WP:INTERVIEW), and again, it is not about the subject but about the US elections. The subject was asked a few questions about himself and answered it. This is hardly enough for anywhere near GNG. Btw, dear anon, are you the article's creator? Where you paid to create it? Please note that our policies (WP:PAID) require disclosure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No need for baseless accusations here - this AfD will be decided on merit. I'm Polish, interested in the subject of big data in politics, and consider this entry both notable and valuable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E104:4800:7C4B:207D:BB45:DAE (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unfortunately, one's own opinion may be good enough for blog, social media or such, but not Wikipedia. The subject fails WP:NBIO, and you haven't shown otherwise, I am afraid. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 09:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- interviews are not useful sources for notability; there's nothing better. WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:30, 20 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) 00:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No disrespect to the anon ips trying to save this article, but I don't agree with their interpretation of the sources. Notability is established through reliable third party sources that discuss the subject "in depth". I haven't seen such sources. This Afd can be closed here. Lourdes 04:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 04:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan Rangarajan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Fails GNG, NCRIC South Nashua (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)~~ Keep per Captain Raju's additions. South Nashua (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCRIC as per nom and WP:GNG. Domdeparis (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He passes WP:NCRIC. Greenbörg (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: Would you please re-read the article and the third point of WP:NCRIC. He passes. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NCRIC. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG and WP:NCRIC.I found some source/ref.The reference has been added below this line:CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

asiancricket.org
barodacricketassociation
straitstimes
cricketmalaysia
singaporecricket.org
gettyimages.co.uk
espncricinfo.com
espncricinfo
cricketarchive
cricbuzz.com

@CAPTAIN RAJU: Can you check it again? He has appeared in division six or above. so why delete? Greenbörg (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN RAJU: Would you please re-read the article and the third point of WP:NCRIC. He passes. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greenbörg and Jack I've already changed my vote.Because of finding references/source.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm certainly no cricket expert, but doesn't he meet the third bullet point of WP:NCRIC by representing Singapore at the 2017 ICC World Cricket League Division Three?? JTtheOG (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in those terms he would certainly meet NCRIC. It should be noted that I disagree with the way that NCRIC is written and would always look for the GNG in any deletion case surrounding a cricketer. I have no further comment in this case. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, your comment should NOT be noted per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Follow WP:CONSENSUS at WP:CRIC re WP:CRIN. If you don't like it, propose changes at WT:CRIC. In short, put up or shut up. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- @Blue Square Thing: That's fair enough. Thanks for the clarification. JTtheOG (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss JTtheOG's question
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a question that probably merits an answer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It clearly meets the WP:NCRIC criteria so should be kept. We currently don't have sources to pass WP:GNG but it is rule of thumb to find someone who passes WP:GNG or not. Resources are always not online they could be found in local newspapers and cricket books, magazines. Greenbörg (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Point 3 of WP:CRIN (and of its WP:NCRIC summary) clearly states that anyone who has appeared as a player or umpire in at least one World Cricket League match of Division Six status or above is a notable player. This has been agreed by WP:CRIC per WP:CONSENSUS. As Greenbörg| rightly says, we do not have to justify GNG for anyone who meets NSPORTS following consensus at the village pump forum. WP:NSPORTS was not amended after that discussion and still rules that The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline (GNG) or the sport specific criteria (SSC) set forth below. WP:NCRIC is a long-accepted part of the SSC and the operative word in the ruling is or. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NCRIC. Nomination is wrong. Johnlp (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments. In fact, the nomination is disruptive. The village pump policy proposal was Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#The criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive, discussed last month, and the the RfC said not to nominate articles for deletion indiscriminately. There have been several of these indiscriminate nominations since the RfC and they have all been rejected. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Passes WP:NCRIC and per the RfC noted above. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - can we please continue to make this point clear somewhere, so that this stops happening? "..it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". Defending every single cricket biography in an NPOV context is becoming boring. The fact that we haven't had to amend the cricket criteria on NSPORTS is testament to the fact that "it just works".

Blue Square Thing, I consider you a good friend, but to claim you "don't like the way" something is done or said without wishing to make any further comment, such as how to fix it to your liking, is counterproductive to any possible debate. Bobo . 17:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I may have missed something but in the discussion about NSPORTS at the village pump I read: "There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. There is a general unhappiness with the permissiveness of some NSPORTS criteria, but no consensus in this discussion on any specific changes to any of them."

I may have missed something but for me that means that a deletion discussion should be based on GNG rather than subject specific criteria. Domdeparis (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, because there was no consensus to change anything in NSPORTS and that includes the ruling at the top which asserts that The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline (GNG) or the sport specific criteria (SSC) set forth below. It is "either...or..." not one at the expense of the other. Furthermore, the RfC ends by saying: "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". In other words, abide by both GNG and NSPORTS; so the only type of sportsperson who should be denied is one who fails both criteria. You started out by thinking that Rohan fails NCRIC, but he doesn't. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

but in the next paragraph of no ports it says "All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." It can't be clearer than that I think.Domdeparis (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the FAQs on NSPORT ? The first one is very clear about the relationship between GNG and topic specific criteria. GNG trumps it every time. Domdeparis (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An FAQ does not equate to an in-bold-top-of-main-page-ruling. If the FAQ contradicts the main page, then the FAQ needs to be revised. I'll take a look at it, however. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've looked at the FAQ, for what it's worth. You have referred to #1 only which says: "(The topic-specific notability guidelines) are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them". Two points about Rohan. First, I have already found two reliable sources (both added to the article yesterday) which meet this requirement. Second, Rohan met the requirements of CRIN only a few days before this AfD was raised and, as there is no apparent reason why his career should not continue, further sources will certainly exist in due course and the statement stipulates that sufficient time must be allowed to locate them. As for "what is sufficient time", please see FAQ #4 which says, inter alia: "There is no fixed rule, as it may differ in each specific case..... given a reasonable expectation that sources can be found..... allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English language sources are difficult to find". As Rohan is Singaporean, he is unlikely to receive coverage in British publications other than Wisden and the online sources already cited. He may well be mentioned in next year's Wisden re the matches he played in May so, assuming it a Wisden citation should be necessary (it isn't, because of the other two), you would have to wait until next April when the 2018 edition is published, which means ten months would be "sufficient time" to locate that citation. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the nominator has changed his opening delete vote to keep in his opening spiel. Can we infer this is therefore a "withdrawn nomination"? Bobo . 10:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played in the World Cricket League at a high enough level to meet WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:38, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L-Boyz Record[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete - I found no sources to indicate that this meets GNG, or is notable by record label standards (notable artists, impact on genre or culture), but I note that sources are likely to be in Arabic, which would be difficult for me to find. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- smallish labels are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 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 with WP:NPASR. Despite two relists, no further discussion happened on the last comment that raised the possibility of the subject meeting NARTIST. So Why 07:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joey B[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST user is creating pages for his album songs. Legacypac (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and MUSICBIO as I nominated a bunch of stuff to AFD and TFD. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 07:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 08:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- would this not meet WP:NARTIST?

The nomination of Joey B’s Tonga set tongues wagging since his song is perceived as being sexually explicit and the Vodafone Ghana Music Awards (VGMA) did not encourage songs with risque music. But Joey B has always insisted Tonga is not profane and he currently besides himself with joy that the song has earned him New Artiste of the Year at the VGMA hosted at the Accra International Conference Centre last Saturday. link.

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:49, 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. Not much discussion, so calling this WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Folk Techno/Pull the Plug[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are almost exclusively self-cites: HuffPost blog by artist, record label, Bandcamp, etc. Only one that might not be is 404. No other evidence of coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:46, 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) 01:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:49, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Freddy Awards[edit]

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

Not a notable award. Local to a small part of two states of the USA, and at high school level. Sources are mostly primary sources lacking any real depth or importance. As well as this, a list of award winners is also up for AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Past Freddy Award nominations and recipients Ajf773 (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. "An annual recognition of outstanding high school musical theatre in the Lehigh Valley area". Local coverage/importance only (The Express-Times). It's a shame to see a decent amount of work wasted, but I have to agree with the nom - this award does not seem to pass WP:GNG. This kind of content should go to a regional or theater wikia or such (maybe it could be copied to [31]?). See also Wikipedia:Notability (awards) for context. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am the creator of this article. The Freddy Awards were the subject of a feature-length documentary film that was broadcast by the Oprah Winfrey Network. That alone means it satisfies WP:N and WP:GNG. The article as it stands right now is heavy on regional sources because they are the best sources of information. Even putting that aside, those regional sources ARE reliable sources (The Express-Times, The Morning Call, WFMZ, etc.), so the article passes WP:V and WP:RS with them alone. However, there ARE other non-regional reliable sources out there that discuss the Freddy Awards, such as the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, the Tennessean, etc. The article as it stands now could be expanded upon and improved with more outside sources (including the feature-length documentary about it), but there is no deadline for such improvements, so it shouldn't be deleted for that reason. And even putting that aside, the article meets notability standards as it is. — Hun ter Ka hn 18:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable local award. The article has the appearance of primarily serving to house annual recipients of the award, which are also non notable. Such content belongs on the award's web page, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:49, 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 List of tallest buildings in Bandung. With none of the listed buildings being individually notable and no evidence of LISTN being satisfied, the deletion arguments are stronger. No prejudice to a relist for List of tallest buildings in Medan, as its late addition to this AFD went almost entirely unnoticed. postdlf (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Bandung[edit]

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

Prod removed by page creator without comment. My concern was Buildings simply not tall enough to make this a notable list Gbawden (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probable delete It's not really the height that matters, it's the notability. There's lots of articles online and published about tall buildings in London or Doha, to take 2 examples, but not much about Bandung; the article is largely cited to a database of construction projects. Almost none of the buildings have Wikipedia articles, so it couldn't even function as an index/list of notable buildings in Bandung. I realise there may be sources in Indonesian, Sundanese, Javan, or other local languages, and that we need to improve Wikipedia coverage of non-western nations. But it doesn't appear to be a notable topic for a list. I'm happy to be proved wrong with references and citations. Any referenced content could be merged to Bandung, but there's a lot of unreferenced entries. Could redirect either to Bandung or List of tallest buildings in Indonesia (which includes a lot of notable buildings). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, got to agree with Colapeninsula with regards to notability. None of the buildings are notable and the only sources that are provided to affirm height are primary sources, no indication of importance of the list article in general nor any of the entries. Ajf773 (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating this list of non notable buildings

Comment I hate the constant drip, drip, drip of AFDs about individual tall buildings and about lists of tallest buildings. This process of considering, and sometimes deleting, isolated buildings or lists seems guaranteed to ensure uneven coverage in Wikipedia and legitimate frustration on the part of contributors. I particularly hate the deletion of lists, because having lists helps by heading off creation of separate articles about buildings. There needs to be a good RFC or other discussion about the big topic area, towards ensuring consistent editing. --do ncr am 18:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bandung's metropolitan area has population over 8 million, bigger than that of most cities in the U.S. and U.K. (where most AFD editors probably hail from). The list has multiple buildings over 100 metres (330 ft) which is a significant threshold. It is pointless and wasteful to delete list-articles like this. The topic of "tallest buildings in ..." is well-established as notable. One could quibble you want to merge this into List of tallest buildings in Indonesia but that is not proposed and that would not be an improvement, as there is enough separate info about Bandung alone. It is clearly better to have a list-article than separate articles about each of the buildings. There is no controversial or contested information in the article, so I do not see any problems with the sourcing, either. Does anyone seriously dispute whether building X is 128 meters tall or whatever? --do ncr am 18:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Bandung - I'm not seeing much, if any, coverage about buildings in Bandung specifically. However a short section on Bandung's article probably wouldn't hurt (as long as it isn't given too much undue weight), and would probably be a better alternative to complete deletion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Gbawden, whats your point? It seems you are suffering from obsessive Deleting disorder! I am creating a page and you are adding in AFD, one by one! Look at the list of tallest buildings in some western cities like List of tallest buildings in Cardiff, then compare how your views justify discriminating cities from other parts of the world. Dont forget Indonesia is the 7th largest ecnomy of the world. Both Bandung and Medan is large metropolis with huge numbers of colonial buildings and high economic activity. They deserve to be included in the list. The list of tallest buildings are not about heritage, its about height! That's why it has the word tallest!

Bandung is the 2nd most populous city in Indonesia. It has many high rise building already. The city is going through transforming its skyline for last few years. Most of the high rise were built after 2014, as there was height restriction in the city. It needs time and patience to create a new page.There is a page in Bahasa Indonesian 'https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daftar_gedung_tertinggi_di_Bandung'. But in my opinion, the topic needs a page in English. Thnx.

Judging importance of Bandung as an expanding metropolis where high rise buildings are flourishing rapidly, this page should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M R Karim Reza (talk • contribs) 21:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

.Keep, as there are plenty of reference and Bandung is an important cultural, educational & economic hub in Southeast Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.124.167.150 (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- IP's 114.124.167.150 and 114.124.151.1 have made very little contributions to Wikipedia outside of this AfD. Suspect these are IP hopping by the article creator and both comments should be discarded. Ajf773 (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow a full seven days for the second article added later and new comments on it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AFD is about "List of tallest buildings in Bandung" and there is no "second article". Upon close examination, I do see a later comment within the discussion suggesting another article for deletion. It is not hidden but also it clearly seems not part of this AFD, by my reading of the nomination and looking at the AFD as a whole. There's no amendment of the AFD statement at the top. No one noticed it and no one has commented. Okay, here is my comment: ignore that, please, and let this AFD be about just what it appears to be about. --doncram 14:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The second article AfD needs to be withdrawn by the nominator if we go down that path. I see that the AfD template has been removed from the articles author, I've replaced for now. Ajf773 (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a constructive article, the article has plenty of references, no need to delete Anoptimistix (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we keep this article, we will soon see "Tallest buildings in ABC", "Tallest buildings in XYZ", and it wouldnt be long to see "Tallest buildings in Dunkineely". The major/important buildings can be added in the article of the city. No need for merge/redirect. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
usernamekiran, what do you mean by ABC or XYZ? Do you have any idea about Bandung? Pls try to enrich yourself about world then suggest!

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I shouldn't have relisted this one...anyways, user consensus shows that the article should be kept. (non-admin closure) SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 18:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Government and binding theory[edit]

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

Term that seems to be only supported by one source. Turns up very minimal results at best, nothing beyond the Chomsky source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in my experience with the linguistic literature, GB is by far the most common name for the theory (if one can call it that), even among its critics (see Martin Haspelmath's critiques of aprioristic approaches to syntax, for example). There's another name, the Principles and Parameters approach, but I don't think the name is as common as GB. In any case, I would support a merge with Principles and parameters. Kayau (talk · contribs) 04:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep and trout for the nominator for not doing elementary WP:BEFORE (or for misspelling it as "governement" in their search, in which case Chomsky's Pisa lectures are almost the only thing that comes up.). GB was the dominant syntactic framework of the 1980s and early 90s. There've been thousands of published papers elucidating one or another aspect of it, and it has been the main subject of dozens of introductory syntax textbooks. If I recall correctly, Principles and Parameters is its successor theory that came to the fore with the Minimalist program of the mid-90s, and at least at first blush I don't see a good reason for merging. – Uanfala 08:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uanfala: So if there are sources, could you please enlighten me on where they are? Because I did do a WP:BEFORE and didn't find crap. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are quite a few on google books, and I'm sure you'll find some on the open shelves of the syntax section in your local library. – Uanfala 18:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fairly sure P&P and GB are the same framework - the Minimalist Programme abandoned parameters. Kayau (talk · contribs) 18:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I might be wrong then, I've never studied any generative grammar. But for these two articles to be merged (which have been separate for a decade and a half), there ought be a focused discussion and a notice on WT:LING. – Uanfala 18:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete As pointed out, a possible merge with Principles and parameters does not require an Afd. I too found decent results via a Gbooks search for the topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:49, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garaj Komik[edit]

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

133 sources, and not one of them seems to be at the same time independent, indepth and reliable.

The article starts with 2 facebook posts, and 90% of the sources are similar self-published or closely related sources (like the sources from Geekcon).

Of the reliable sources, most don't mention Garaj Komik[32][33][34][35] or at best give a very passing mention[36].

While I haven't opened all 133 sources, it looks as if the impressive number of sources needs to hide the fact that this comic hasn't yet received the necessary attention in reliable independent sources to get an article here. Fram (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yeah, this is a weird one. Seven citations for the first release date? Citations for random tidbits like synonyms for minicomics? The excessive citing of each issues content is a red flag. For some reason the creator for a story and the story plot are sourced to different places. There are three citations (49, 50, and 51) that Lupis has no cure because it's mentioned in the plot summary. The user's only [contributions] have been on this article or information about it on other articles. The closest claim to notability the article makes is being the 26th most recognized brand of comic in Malaysia. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:48, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 12:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laksa Kedah[edit]

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

Article has only recipe. Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTCOOKBOOK. I can find references for the dish in cookbooks, such as this one at Page 233, but the fact remains that this article is nothing but a recipe. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Moraes[edit]

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

It's quite clear that this is a vanity article by a crank designed to legitimize his psuedoscientific quackery concerning drug addiction. A quick scan of the edit history for the article shows that Francis doesn't even hide the various sockpuppets he uses to engage in edit wars over this peacock article. Speedy delete now. 107.3.56.202 (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I remain neutral at this time. --Finngall ^talk 03:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the note of the article and the lack of notability of the author, it seems it was just created to promote his vanity press. Nowhere in the article or on the internet could I find anything that suggests the subject has particular expertise in the neuropharmacology/psychopharmacology of drug addiction. His work sounds very fringe to me. 198.246.186.210 (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ( T / C ) 02:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oh boy. This is a BLP with no sources. It contains extremely dubious medical claims concerning drug addiction that should be subject to WP:MEDRS but again, have no source. The edit history reveals it was almost certainly written by the subject himself, through many socks, and includes an unaddressed copyvio and gems such as "Removed personal information probably added by Dr. Moraes' ex-wife". I'm astounded it's managed to survive 13 years!

As for any prospect of improving it, Moraes does not seem to be notable. I can't find any biographical sources through Google or Google News searches. His books don't appear to have been reviewed in any RSes, are held in <50 libraries, and are only cited in a handful of other works. – Joe (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - BLP with no sources, copyvios, and multiple other problems. As per Joe Roe, I'm perplexed as to how it has survived for this long! SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 18:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a completely unreferenced BLP that throws the word "heroin" around a lot. Do we need more reason? --Lockley (talk) 09:03, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed Loves[edit]

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

The series was never produced. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:26, 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) 02:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:46, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghaby[edit]

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

I found nothing to show notability for this musician. The subject of the article is the creator. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:44, 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) 02:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as appears to fail WP:MUSIC with current references. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 20:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Farha[edit]

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

No independent evidence of notability. Written partly in the first person in a self-promotional style. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:ADVOCACY; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 05:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Database of Recorded American Music[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability. f e minist 16:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. f e minist 16:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Appears to be the subject of some discussion at the intersection of music studies and library science. There's a fairly brief bit in the Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, the American Library Association-published Guide to Developing a Library Music Collection, and similar works. Billboard's article on digital music services for libraries (2010-12-11, p 12), provides only a bare mention of DRAM, but does give a sense of the cost of the service to subscribing libraries. I suspect there's quite a bit more in sources I don't have ready access to. There appears to be a 2003 article about the inception of this database in The Gramophone, for example, and potentially some coverage in scholarly articles in Internet Reference Services Quarterly and Music Reference Services Quarterly (both Taylor and Francis publications). I don't find any silver bullet sources to firmly demonstrate notability, but that's not uncommon for library science resource topics. My opinion from what I can see is that it narrowly clears the bar. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:ADVOCACY, with copy such as "....a continually growing, online resource providing on-demand, high-quality streaming media access to nearly 9,000 essential musical works...". And it goes downhill from there. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 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) 03:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting notability standards for a LA topic. Also note that AfD is not WP:CLEANUP for tone issues e.g. advocacy; editors have to do that for ourselves. Newimpartial (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:45, 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. Unanimous agreement to delete, so closing this even though it was just relisted. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Friel[edit]

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

Self created article referenced only to IMDB; list of credits there shows only minor roles, nothing to meet WP:NACTOR and nothing in article to suggest meeting WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 08:21, 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) 03:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references to meet WP:NACTOR and a largely unsourced BLP to boot. A Train^talk 15:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the fact that the article was created by the person himself already rings alarm bells for me. There is only one source (his IMDB page) which is ineligible as it does not denote notability. Thus, the article and its subject fail to achieve GNGs and the article can be safely deleted. GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 21:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 20:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AutoKey[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 08:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:MANUAL; not encyclopedically relevant. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Did you mean WP:NOTMANUAL? If so, I can't see how this article is written like a manual. Christian75 (talk) 12:53, 30 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) 03:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Found mention in Linux Journal which I have linked in External Links. Article could be expanded, should probably be merged with an article on Linux utilities (although I could not find one). Listmeister2 (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Barton Harvey III[edit]

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

Only one source, and fails WP:GNG. This article was created by User talk:Hyungjoo98, who has created promotional articles for the Hill School, such as History of The Hill School, Wolfeboro Camp School, and numerous alumni pages. Dozens of his pages, including this one, have been nominated for speedy deletion, and he has deleted all of them. Peapod21 (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough RS GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at the moment, the current source listed is simply not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Barton Harvey Jr.[edit]

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

Only one source, and fails WP:GNG. This article was created by User talk:Hyungjoo98, who has created promotional articles for the Hill School, such as History of The Hill School, Wolfeboro Camp School, and numerous alumni pages. Dozens of his pages, including this one, have been nominated for speedy deletion, and he has deleted all of them. Peapod21 (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one sources is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough RS GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:41, 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 no consensus. Despite three relists, there is no consensus whether to keep, merge/redirect or delete. Consensus seems to be to keep it in one form or another but whether that's as a stand-alone article or merged somewhere was not resolved here. Fortunately, that can be discussed at the talk page. So Why 20:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rogers Blood[edit]

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

Unfortunately, he doesn't satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Neither a Silver Star (at the cost of his life) nor a ship or two named after him suffice. A merge and redirect to USS Rogers Blood seems appropriate. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - disagree. Having a vessel named in your honor should be a sign of lasting notability. SOLDIER doesn't trump GNG. Having a named vessel leads to ongoing coverage (in books, articles, etc.) of the namesake.Icewhiz (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That hasn't been the case in the past, including at least one Afd I started. Also you can't inherit notability from coverage of your namesake. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont see anything that would pass a threshold for a stand-alone article, a mention in the ship article would suffice. MilborneOne (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas unsourced original research and a tribute page. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into ship article per nom. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Icewhiz. Having a warship named after you is sufficient to ring the WP:N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - getting a destroyer escort or a larger ship named after you is a big a deal, or at least evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge useful content to the article about the operational ship named after him. He certainly served with gallantry and honor, and died far too young, as have uncounted millions of soldiers. He does not meet WP:SOLDIER. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: unfortunately, the subject does not seem notable enough for a stand-alone article. Nevertheless, I believe any reliably sourced information should be merged to the article on the ship that was commissioned, with the link relating to the Marine then becoming a redirect. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Assuming this gets merged and redirected, which article should it get merged into? There have been 2 warships named in his honor: USS Rogers Blood (DE-555) and USS Rogers Blood (APD-115). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natg 19 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, only one was completed and commissioned: USS Rogers Blood (APD-115), so that would be the target of the redirect in my opinion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd add it to the dab page as "USS Rogers Blood has been the name of more than one United States Navy ship named after Marine Corps First Lieutenant Rogers Blood, who was killed leading a charge against the Japanese defenders of Engebi Island in World War II, for which he was awarded the Silver Star." Clarityfiend (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 20:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Burger[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. The four cited sources only mention his name, with no biographical detail, and my searches haven't found anything. John of Reading (talk) 09:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 13:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 13:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fail WP:BIO and WP:GNG as my searches have yielded no independent sources with extensive coverage; there is this, but unless he got extensive plastic surgery, it is a different guy. --Hazarasp (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sadie Vidal[edit]

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

Fails WP:Politician. No evidence of any notability. No evidence that this candidate has even been selected by the Conservative party. No reliable and independent references except that she exists and has been elected as a councillor for a ward in Bridgend Council Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsuccessful electoral candidate, failing WP:POLITICIAN criterion 3 and WP:GNG in the absence of substantial non-electoral coverage. AllyD (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither local authority councillors nor unsuccessful parliamentary candidates get an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NPOL, but the purely WP:ROUTINE sourcing here demonstrates neither the volume nor the geographic range needed to deem her a special case over and above all the other local authority councillors and unsuccessful parliamentary candidates who don't have Wikipedia articles. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable political candidate. I agree that she does not meet WP:NPOL LAroboGuy (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aron Anazia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable individual. All sources are written by subject. All meaningful contributions to page made by SPAs. —Laoris (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The three sources are all repostings of Anazia telling his story. Nothing indicates that his independent film is at all notable, and until I edited this article it had horrible over name dropping. It still goes into way more detail than justified, which seems to be saying anything about this throughly unnotable performer. The last nomination closed as no consensus because no one made any comments, but it probably should have been closed as a soft delete. The problems brought up there still exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete references currently listed within the article do not convey notability. WP:GNG and WP:BIO do not appear to be met with the current references. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 20:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Task Force Tips[edit]

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

Not very notable can find passing mentions: Bloomberg, bought the company mentioned in local paper and some articles: 1, 2 3, 4 None of these sources are in the article, do we think they are good sources, and do they demonstrate actual notability, as opposed to just something to write about for NWItimes? The article is no good, but that can be dealt with somewhere else. I did have to use some advancedsearching. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom Com I wasn't convinced when I started this that TFT was un-notable, and with all the sources/mentions that have been pulled up below, and the RSN discussion, I believe now that TFT is notable enough to stay in Wikipedia. It would be disruptive to Withdraw, so I am !voting keep. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC) edited d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 17:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]
- L3X1, please bold any confirmed vote.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ...not notable Bosley John Bosley (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep there are a lot of search results that could be used to source a decent article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- TonyTheTiger, please research and cite sources so that we can be sure they meet the criteria for establishing notability. The only ones I can see fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - For starters, this says what the company does--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - here is something about the history of their production process.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - here is something about their modern production process.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could go on but this entity seems to pass WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks TonyTheTiger. For the purposes of finding sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability, this says what the company does but fails WP:ORGIND. This says something about the history of their production process but fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND (and not independent). Finally, here the Fotune article which says something about their modern production process] but fails WP:ORGIND. Note, finding sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability is different than finding sources to establish facts. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 22:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - HighKing, Not a single one of those sources fails WP:ORGIND. Reread that section and you will see that these do not fall under the exceptions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        TonyTheTiger ORGIND addresses the "Independence of sources" and states: A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it.. You say that "not a single one of those sources fails" and I think we'll just have to disagree with each other. For me its very clear. For example, the nwtimes article is an announcement from Madison Industries that they've acquired a controlling interest in the company - and goes on to use extensive quotes from Madison Industries. Clearly not independent. Similarly the machinedesign article uses a "case study" from a supplier of Task Force Tips. Again, not independent. Finally, the fortune article on the rise of robotic usage simply repeats quotes provided by the CEO where the company "talks about itself". -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems that you fail to understand the difference between journalism and a press release. The nwtimes article is not an annoucnement from Madison Industries, it is what we would term journalism and is presumed to have been published through the desired editorial process. I have posted a clarification request at WP:RSN on this point. Let's see what the experts on RS say.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails gng. The links in the AfD but not in the article do not convince me.Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am re-opening this discussion following a conversation on my talk page where an editor expressed concern that they might posses evidence that will establish notability. I am therefore restoring the article and relisting this discussion for another week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See above comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At WP:RSN, it is consensus (third party commentary by Only in death and The Four Deuces) that the sources I have presented are WP:RS, which debunks HighKing's argument that they are not. This does not mean the subject is notable. WP:GNG requires a significant coverage from RS. Here we must judge what constitutes significant coverage. I could likely produce more RS, but my point is that there are RS and that the article should be kept because there are multiple RS. I don't know how close multiple RS is to significant coverage by RS, but what I have shown definitely gets you down that road toward significant coverage. In most AFD debates, this is sufficient although RSN commentary makes it clear that multiple RS is not automatically significant. I just clicked on the "find sources" search links above and found three quickly. I think we all are capable of clicking on the search links above and seeing several RS now that we should all understand what an RS is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Please point out anywhere in my comments where we had a discussion about the reliability of the sources? I know you enjoy creating strawman arguments but it's rich when you don't even bother to read my responses. Maybe I'm being too harsh. Do you wear glasses to read (and keep forgetting to put them on)? Or perhaps English isn't your first language? Regardless, please pay attention to what is actually being said and it would also help if you actually read (with comprehension) what is being said. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to add. You say that the sources you've presented are RS which debunks the argument I put forward (and no, it doesn't because I never put forward that argument or any argument based on the reliability of sources). Then you go on to state This does not mean the subject is notable. Odd. This is exactly the argument I put forward. Perhaps you missed that point during the discussion at the RS noticeboard. There, Only in death also clearly states they do not give significant coverage to confer notability which you have chosen not to highlight. Once again, this is the exact point I have made. Your position is illogical. On the one hand, you have not only clearly disagreed with me and stated complained I was POV pushing, yet on the other you have agreed with others that make the same point and you've now adopted that position yourself. I also note that you have failed to mention that the "consensus" at the RS noticeboard includes me. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Some RS I've found...

- [37] "The answer to this dilemma that proves that indeed, you can do more with less, is the attack monitor. The first was the Blitzfire was introduced by Task Force Tips, followed by Akron's Mercury, Elkhart's RAM, Crestar's Personal Monitor, and others." Note that while this says 'blog' in the title, it's a sponsored/hosted blog at an RS.

- [38] TFT chief marketing officer in a hosted (RS) roundtable regarding advances in firefighting foam.

- [39] Looks like they authored/published a book on nozzle operations which appears to be normative and quoted in industry press, the original appears to be here.

- [40] Products mentioned in the context of marine firefighting. Bare mention, but it's an RS outside the fire service press.

- [41] Another new product, but this looks like a press release. Here is a different RS coverage of the same product. Another industry press release covered in an RS.

- Company got sold recently

- [42] They use manufacturing robots. more coverage of same topic.

- [43] 2010 coverage of the CEO.

That's about 10 minutes of searching using only Google. Overall, that's some pretty decent RS coverage for a company that only employs 250 people. GNG is clearly met. Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some scholar articles:

Spray Characteristics From Fire Hose Nozzles from snippet, compares at least one of their products by name to competitors' products.
Compressed Air Foam Fire Grounds Evolution Tests Another product evaluation, this time for foam systems.
Development of a Flow Modifier for Reducing the Reaction Force of Firefighting Nozzles U.S. Military firefighting research, which used a TFT product.
SOLID MODELING HELPS ENGINEERS DOUSE FIRES In Russian, I can't read it, but mentions TFT in the abstract. Jclemens (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And some book references. There are a bunch of snippet views that look promising, but I can't see in detail what they say. What I can see is...

Invented the automatic adjustable nozzle. If you don't know how important this is to modern firefighting, please educate yourself.
Firefighting textbook uses their calculations for variable stream nozzle reaction force and flow.
US NFA glossary defines Task Force Tips as "a popular brand of adjustable fog stream combination nozzle, now a ubiquitous term for that type of nozzle. (emphasis mine) Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jclemens, thank you for those sources. My comments are below.

This firehouse article is a blog post and this fails as a Reliable Source since blogs are considered self-published and not under any editorial control, etc.
This firechief article is an interview with experts including a Rod Carringer. The article only mentions Task Force Tips once, which is when it provides Rod's title as "Task Force Tips' chief marketing officer". For the purposes of establishing notability, this article is not independent and it fails WP:ORGIND.
I cannot view this article from fireengineering.com and it isn't available in archive either. If possible, could you provide some additional information?
This marinelog.com article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as a "passing mention" - the article merely mentions that there is a TFT remote operated monitor installed one of the many boats described
This firehouse article fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH as it relies on quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources and it a press release written by Task Force Tips
This Bloomberg article fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH as it relies on quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources.
This nwtimes article fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH as it relies on quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources and is essentially a published interview with the CEO and cannot be viewed as independent.

Looking at the scholarly references and the book references (which usually yield far better results for establishing notability)

This DRUM article is a 46 page thesis entitled "Spray Characteristics from Fire Hose Stream Nozzles" by Brian Edward Salyers. This fails WP:AUD as the audience is extremely limited.
This CalPoly article fails for the same reason
This DTIC article fails for the same reason and also fails WP:CORPDEPTH since there are only passing mentions of using a Task Force Tips nozzle (for comparison) to other nozzles and a prototype.
This Russian article fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND because - well it doesn't matter what reason I provide because you didn't/can't read it. Establishing notability isn't about "mentions => notable" and if you can't be arsed reading a reference, I don't see how you can credibly state that the source meets the criteria for establishing notability. Just FYI, here's the English language version.
This book "Fire Officer's Handbook of Tactics" fails WP:CORPDEPTH since it is only a passing mention in relation to describing Clyde McMillan.
This Book on "Structural Fire Fighting" fails for the same reason (passing mention)
This Book "Us National Fire Academy (Nfa) Handbook" fails WP:CORPDEPTH also as it includes "Taskforce Tip (TFT)" in a Glossary of Firefighting Equipment and nowhere else.

I have to say that I'm surprised TFT cannot meet the criteria for notability since it is clear that they are a well known and established brand within the (at least US) firefighting industry. I've trawled some more through the web and I have found:

This book entitled "The Idea-Driven Organization: Unlocking the Power in Bottom-Up Ideas" writes about how TFT acquired an expensive system through auction. I believe it meets the criteria for establishing notability as it is an independent and reliable secondary source.

If we can find one other source, I would (as always) be happy to change my !vote. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you remain unconvinced, but I fear that many of the best references are in online books without preview available online--check through the Google Books links above and see if you agree. Regarding the Firehouse Blog link, I addressed that already: That's an editorially-overseen column at an RS magazine--just because it says 'blog' in the URL doesn't mean it is an unreliable source. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens It isn't whether I am convinced or unconvinced, it is whether the sources meet the criteria for establishing notability or not. I've provided my reasoning above and referenced appropriate guidelines. If you disagree (as you have with the 'blog' post) then it is up to you to point out any errors or miscomprehensions on my part. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm going to disagree with a large swath of your analysis, on the basis of this quote: "*This Bloomberg article fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH as it relies on quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources." In fact, the article is not substantially or predominately based on such quotations, as if it were a press release, which means you're setting the bar far too high and unreasonably beyond what the relevant notability guidelines say. Based on what you've said in this case, I reject all your reasoning based on ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. I want to reiterate that I completely agree that Wikipedia should not be an outlet for free organizational advertising, but neither do I think we should expunge non-promotional discussion of market-leading companies. Jclemens (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens I assume you mean that, as an example, if my analysis of The Bloomberg article is "typical", then you are using this example and how the guidelines are applied to disagree with all of the analysis. In my opinion, that position is both unreasonable and illogical. Nevertheless, lets look at The Bloomberg article in depth in relation to what it says about TFT. In general, the article discusses industrial robots. There is no mention of TFT until the fourth paragraph which consists entirely of a quote from Steward McMillan, the CEO. The next paragraph, the fifth, is also entirely attributed to McMillan. The sixth paragraph continues in the same vein - everything is attributed to McMillan. The article then continues and uses examples of industrial robots in other companies and from manufacturers. The final paragraph in the article ends with a namecheck of McMillian again and nothing more. There are no other mentions. I believe my analysis is reasonable. This article fails WP:CORPDEPTH's "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" and fails WP:ORGIND's "any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it". Everything written about TFT is directly attributed to a company officer. While I disagree that my interpretation is incorrect or that the bar is being set "far too high", I am interested in learning/adjusting to ensure that I remain open-minded and as fair as possible. I've already searched and found one additional source which I believe will pass the criteria for establishing notability and I've already stated that I'm surprised that another source hasn't/can't be found. Can you provide a more in-depth explanation as to why you believe the guidelines above should not or do not apply to the Bloomberg article? Thank you. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 22:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at CORPDEPTH in context, that clause is in the context of other trivial things. Thus, a single quote might not pass CORPDEPTH, but multiple, substantive quotes do. There are 12 separate bullet points, and I am interpreting quoted material in context of the other 11, which makes it clear that it's only referring to small, single quotes, not multiple paragraphs. Jclemens (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens, the basis of all criteria for establishing notability is that an intellectually independent source provides significant and in-depth coverage. In my opinion, if the vast majority of an article merely repeats material written by the company or one of the company's officers, it fails the criteria for establishing notability. In contrast, should an article quote from company materials or a company officer but then goes on to explain or expand on what has been said, that may show intellectual independence and a level of in-depth coverage that meets the criteria. In the examples provided above it is fairly straightforward that the journalist is simply repeating and not providing any level of intellectual independence. I know you have personal knowledge of the industry and of the various organizations operating in the industry but I cannot find another source that (to my mind) meets the criteria for establishing independence. Again, if one turns up, I'm happy to change my !vote. Having spent the past three days reading all sorts of articles, I am starting to share your frustration that one more source cannot be found. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record (i.e., Closing administrator review) I remain unconvinced by this interpretation which is exceptional among all the other criteria listed in WP:CORPDEPTH. Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- completely unremarkable; the coverage is either routine (product news, executive appointments) or passing mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I just reviewed WP:CORPDEPTH, and I've got at least a half dozen here that are more substantial than that threshold. I'd appreciate how you believe that applies to the sources in my above post (note: I know some of them are repeats), especially the last three which I added after your comment. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please remember to be pithy when commenting. At some point an admin (it won't be me) is going to have to plow through this wall of text. Be concise. Cite policies or guidelines if possible. Avoid repeating points already made. Confine your comments to what is germane to the discussion and be brief. Above all, be brief! -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To encourage more discussion about the sources put forth....
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:38, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 03:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Banday[edit]

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

Doesn't meet any aspect of WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete merely existing does not make something notable. It needs to have been covered in sources. None are even shown for this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of why it's notable. LAroboGuy (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Management innovation[edit]

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

Original research cobbled together from various sources, much of it now deleted because of copyright. The article fails even to provide references supporting its title as a notable, rather than generic, term. Lithopsian (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. The lead alone is a total mess, and much of this must be re-written from scratch. Bearian (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- reads like a personal essay or project. Not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like an essay, delete per WP:TNT. Possible (weak) WP:NOTWEBHOST. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EScreeningz[edit]

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

This page does not seem to meet the criteria of notability. Furthermore, it is an orphan and seems to be an advertisement. Finally, the website's domain name cannot be reached. Snood1205 (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are providing no coverage in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. Fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and North America -- no assertion of notability anywhere in the article. A Train^talk 15:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spotware Systems[edit]

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

Deleted in 2012 as non-notable. remains non-notable today. Refs 1 and 2 are from the company, ref 3 & 4 essentially press releases; as for ref 5, the near-failure of the company is not enough to make it notable. DGG ( talk ) 20:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply not enough there at the moment to warrant an article. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a copyvio. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio University 2017 Student Protest[edit]

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

Non-notable localized student protest fails event notability guidlines WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, and WP:DIVERSE, etc. Heavy reliance on primary sources violates WP:NOR. GretLomborg (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - copyvio of this, report [44]. - TheMagnificentist 16:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 20:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oon Yeoh[edit]

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

Non-notable blogger and the only sources I can really find related to him are written by him. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Despite winning a 1995 world Judo championship, I can find nothing to support that and in fact the only mentions I've found parrot this article which has been unsourced for nearly 3 years and I don't see that changing. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to be clear he did not win the World Judo championship just attended. Medalling would be notable, attending not really.PRehse (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no references given and the external link is to his personal website, so WP:GNG is not met. He did compete at two world championships, losing his first match in one and winning a round of 64 match in the other (before losing his next two matches). Merely competing in these events has not been considered sufficient to warrent inclusion in the past. Papaursa (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to pass WP:GNG, there is a clear lack of independent and reliable sources here that would let us keep this article. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 07:29, 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. So Why 20:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evolver One[edit]

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

No evidence to support WP:BAND. Article seems to be created solely to create an argument for keep in another AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulsa Pittaway Ajf773 (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear evidence to support WP:BAND. "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" WP:BAND#1. Article has multiple sources that independent and reliable and provide coverage of Evolver One. "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." WP:BAND#2. Article has a verified claim on national charting. Article was not created to CREATE an argument for keep, it was created when challenged for evidence of the bands notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable South African band with a #1 on the charts Gbawden (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot find evidence that it had a #1 single on the national charts. Sources?? Ajf773 (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for reasons above. Ouseriv (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Article has a verified claim on national charting" This has not been verified. National charts should follow WP:GOODCHARTS and not have some random website state 'the artist has a chart topping song'. - TheMagnificentist 15:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
South Africa has one chart according to WP:GOODCHARTS, and it's compiled by Entertainment Monitoring Africa. Their site is undergoing maintenance, and Archive.org links don't work either. If I were to close this AfD now, I would close it as 'keep until the chart is live again'.--Laun chba ller 23:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to TheMagnificentist's unsupported claim The Witness (South African newspaper) is not a random website. It is South Africa's longest continuously published newspaper currently published by a major media organisation Media24. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlo Barbul[edit]

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

His company may be notable, but I can't really seem to find anything saying that he is. bojo | talk 13:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG as there are no non-incidental mentions --Hazarasp (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- solely a CV. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as appears to be a possible WP:NOTWEBHOST violation. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thadagam road[edit]

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

PROD removed without explanation, and after assessing the source, this appears to be OR material. Overall, it fails GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 04:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 04:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Looking around, I'm struggling to find the road in question - it's nowhere near National Highway 67 (instead, a small part of it is on what I presume is NH164) and there is no way that it meets GNGs.

Looking at consensuses on international equivalent, it appears that roads of this level (local feeder) are seldom, if ever notable. GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 19:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not a notable subject. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 19:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no substantive indication that this road is a subject notable enough for inclusion. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with above, not notable. MB 05:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transport_in_Coimbatore#Roads This is a genuine road in Coimbatore and it is quite long. From Google Maps, it seems to be one of the main arterial roads. I measured part of the distance in Google maps and it seems to be more than 5 Km long. In Transport_in_Coimbatore#Roads it is mentioned as one of the major roads.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)--DreamLinker (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This road is definitely a major road, though I am finding it hard to find articles written entirely about it. Except for this one http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Coimbatore/thadagam-road-to-be-widened-soon/article3323551.ece, I am not able to find any article describing it in detail. However, there are a lot of articles which reference it. The road is one of the major and someone could search about it, which is why I feel Wikipedia should have an article. Otherwise, can we merge the information to Transport_in_Coimbatore#Roads. I already put a request for merge, but it seems no one has replied.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I change my opinion to a redirect.--DreamLinker (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing anything notable here about this road. Fails GNG. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 14:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intimations of Immortality, Audiovisual Work[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC (closest notability guideline I could find) The analysis of the sources are:

impossible to know what the source is
Self published work by the author
Web site of the compositor
page about one of the inspirations for the work and and nothing about the subject
page about one of the inspirations for the work and and nothing about the subject
page about one of the inspirations for the work and and nothing about the subject
artist's page about his own work
page about one of the inspirations for the work and and nothing about the subject
page about one of the inspirations for the work and and nothing about the subject
web site inaccessible impossible to verify the source but the description of the site by themselves is "La Posta Capital is a neighborhood newspaper in the western area of the city of Buenos Aires" so unlikely to be considered a reliable source to prove the notability of the subject.
artist's page about his own work
page about one of the inspirations for the work and and nothing about the subject

None of these sources are enough to prove notability for the work. I have carried out a search for sources and have found nothing that helps to prove notability. Domdeparis (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, a largely unsourced speculative essay with a large amount of Art Gas, created by an SPA with likely COI. Or better yet speedy delete as patent nonsense. --Lockley (talk) 21:17, 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. Not much discussion here, so calling this WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 11:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

System Design and Management (MIT)[edit]

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

The article topic does not appear to meet the threshold for notability. A brief search indicates trivial and primary mentions, and no reliable sources covering the program in-depth. Izno (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:G12 -- RoySmith (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cardio Exercises Achilles Tendon Injury[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG and reads like an essay attempting to give medical advice. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 21:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not contain any references/does not pass GNG, reads a lot like an essay (throughout) trying to give the reader medical advice (in parts). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As mentioned above, poorly written, totally unreferenced, and largely WP:HOWTO, all of which could be fixed. The deeper problem is that this just doesn't seem like a topic for an encyclopedia article. I could see an article on Achilles tendon injury (and in fact, we have Achilles tendon rupture), but it's hard to see how an article on achilles tendon injuries specifically related to cardio exercises makes sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you search for the first sentence, you'll find that this is word-for-word identical to many other sources. There's a lot of copy-paste going on here, but unclear in which direction, so add probable copyvio to the list of reasons to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this further, the full text of this article was added in a single edit, just a few days ago. The other sites clearly pre-date it. Not to mention that the creator is already indef blocked for spamming. So, I'm just going to WP:G12 this (Unambiguous copyright infringement). -- RoySmith (talk) 11:23, 9 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 Mystra (Forgotten Realms). Consensus is to not keep. Implementing as this redirect for now, editors can determine what to merge from history or where else to possibly redirect to. Sandstein 07:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dweomerheart[edit]

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

Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Plane (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- poorly sourced, nothing but plot summary and unnecessary quotations. This fictional location doesn't seem important even in-universe and there is no indication of any real-world significance or notability. Given the poor sourcing and abysmal quality, there's nothing useful to be merged anywhere. Redirect after deletion is possible but probably not necessary. Reyk _YO! 11:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to Mechanus or Mystra (Forgotten Realms) may be appropriate. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per Josh Milburn and WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- there's nothing to merge as the article does not list nor cite any sources. All "in universe" content. K.e.coffman (talk) 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. Ultimately, consensus here leans towards delete. References to something someone said are not enough to pass GNG. There need to be better sources that are about Bastani if we're going to have an article about him. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Bastani[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This had been deleted at an earlier AfD, then brought to review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 13. The result of that review was to relist at AfD. This is a purely administrative action; I offer no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator at the previous AfD, per my arguments there. None of the reliable sources identified in the Deletion review discussion contain any substantial discussion of Bastani. Other arguments offered (e.g. having been interviewed on the news and having lots of followers on Twitter) have no bearing on notability. (If the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novara Media (2nd nomination) is keep, then this ought to be redirected there rather than being deleted.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The enormous number of sources presented demonstrate clear notability. AusLondonder (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novara Media (2nd nomination). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I sure hope nominator appreciates that lot of us expect that, prior to making a nomination, one should conduct a meaningful and fairminded review of potential references, as per WP:BEFORE.
IMO, it would be best if all partcipants at an AFD conducted their own web-search, as many well-meaning nominators try to comply with BEFORE, but just aren't skilled enough to do so competently, or do not appreciate that meaningful compliance with BEFORE requires them to not obfuscate factors in favour of considering the topic notable.
I did my own web search. When I looked at the results tossed up by the google scholar search I found that several scholars quoted notable phrases Bastani coined.

In a discussion of how people should cope in a future where most skilled work is automated Mareile Pfannebecker and J.A. Smith quote Bastani

The Long Read: What Will We Do in the Post-Work Utopia?

"For many people –academics and activists included – the prospect of living between the allotment and the Hegel discussion group might seem idyllic. But there are plenty of others for whom this post-work utopia could sound like hard work: a mix of newly idealised domestic labour on the one hand, and a haughty obligation to constantly improve ourselves on the other. The accusation is anticipated in the slogan coined by new media activist Aaron Bastani. ‘Fully Automated Luxury Communism’ is a provocative and maybe partly tongue-in-cheek phrase gaining traction as a means of summarising a future where most waged labour has been automated, everyone is sustained by UBI and advanced Green technologies keep all in a state of ecologically-sound plenty.

C Lenhardt, in “Free Peltier Now!” The Use of Internet Memes in American Indian Activism wrote:

"The underlying premise, in the words of Aaron Bastani, is “that Internet-mediated memetics represent a fundamental shift in how social movements, as new forms of social practice, rear themselves and how quickly they spread, are adopted and reach critical mass.”

In In Defence of Occupy's Politics RC Smith wrote:

"As Aaron Bastani recently commented in his programme on Novara FM, “what if the people (i.e., demos) – who are sovereign – want to change existing relations of property?” The answer is fierce resistance by the state, as evidenced in how “Occupy was systematically destroyed by a highly coordinated attack that spanned several prominent institutional structures and channels of power …/ which includes the use of tactical violence and police brutality”.

In Postsubjective simulation and digital culture NS Wade wrote:

"Even critics such as Aaron Bastani who contests the reduction of freedoms in simulation concede that "The erosion of publicly owned media, specifically in developed countries during the last several decades, has exacerbated [recuperation]" and “The consequence has been a persistent deepening of social communication into the subsumption of capital”

In The Future of Talent: Reflections from the World Future Society Conference Hannah Steiner-Mitchell, writing about a time when automation eliminated most jobs, and most people lived on a guaranteed basic income, wrote:

"In an interview with The Guardian, Aaron Bastani (co-founder of Novara Media) explains what this possible future may look like:

The demand would be a 10- or 12-hour working week, a guaranteed social wage, universally guaranteed housing, education, healthcare and so on ... There may be some work that will still need to be done by humans, like quality control, but it would be minimal.

In the original AFD Arms & Hearts offered the opinion that Bastani did not measure up to any of the inclusion criteria of GNG, Journalist, or Academic. Well Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals has inclusion criteria "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." Authors quote Bastani for his vision of a future where robots have freed humans from drudgery, leaving us to either work short work-weeks at truly creative work robots can't do. I suggest this means he does measure up to this criteria.

A common misconception one sees in AFD are claims individuals should not be considered to measure up to the criteria for including an article devoted to them, because the article doesn't touch on the mundane milestones, like place of birth, or where they studied, or whether they were married, or had children. In another recent AFD very experienced contributor DGG said, in part: "Of course biographic detail is nice, but unnecessary--a notable person is notable because of the work they do , not by virtue of being born. Even under the GNG do not need in depth coverage of the person's personal life, just of the aspects of his life that bring forth notability." Geo Swan (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Previously deleted. Now here it is again. Sources like Guardian has not covered about this person, but rather this person making an opinion about something. How it is relevant for an encyclopedia to create an article for this individuals? There are thousands of people present opinion on major things happening worldwide, even from political background. Nothing make an individual notable enough to be here. Wikipedia is not a Profile. Light2021 (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of the outcome of the previous AfD, the present article clearly presents a Notable individual offering original insights (per WP:PROF and WP:CREATIVE), documented in multiple reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please quote some reliable sources covering about him in-depth? where he is not just giving opinions on subjects? Light2021 (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's true that the most systematic coverage directed at him as a person comes from the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday, which are not considered reliable. But this is what I have to say about that: the Mail is considered UNreliable mostly for its fact-free editorial pronouncements and its reprinting of sensational stories. The stories it printed about Bastani involved actual investigative journalism directed at him personally as well as at Momentum, and are independently substantiated; I would consider such an effort by a major media outlet to contribute to his Notability. Newimpartial (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC) 03:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And hence you proves the point. Thank you. We do not create Wikipedia article based on personal belief of notability. Its the public media that defines the notability. Else person might be important at their place, but not for Encyclopedia. Light2021 (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read my argument about the Mail coverage? That is an argument based on (1) Noticeboard discussions of the Mail on WP (2) WP:N and the GNG (3) reading the Mail itself (shudder) and (4) reading the Mail stories on Bastani. It doesn't reflect a mere 'personal belief'. Newimpartial (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . I admit that he might possibly be notable, but definitely not according to Wikipedia's criteria. The sources, which comprise his own works, tweets, and other fleeting mentions of his work, just don't do it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This comment might not be compliying with the "wikipedia" standards, but I simply was extremely happy to find a wikipedia entry about Aaron Bastami after I read one of his online articles on open democracy. Please keep it!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.103.71.217 (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New entry by unknown user. Suspicious on grounds of voting for Keep. Light2021 (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "quoting memorable phrases" of a writer is not equivalent to the developing new theory standards of WP:PROF. This is not an academicv, and I'm not sure the standards thtereare even applicable; but he does not meet them;. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--per DGG, and per lack of passing the GNG. A couple of quotes here and there don't make for notability. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked where I can on the internets and all that I found were Daily Mail articles and nothing in the press that talks about this guy in any meaningful way. Does not pass GNG, so it should not get an article. Valeince (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel this does meet WP:BIO. There are sufficient third party references to Bastani from reliable third party sources, and he is referenced in several published books. While none of these sources offer "substantial" coverage on their own, I feel they are sufficient in number to meet the WP:BASIC notability guidelines. gbrading (ταlκ) 13:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the sources presented above are interviews and passing mentions; these are insufficient to establish notability. To establish notability, we'd need 3rd party reviews and analysis of the subject's works, not quotes from the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its clear that there is an absence of substantial coverage. Tangential mentions or quotations aren't really going to be enough - especially as they were in the media and are therefore more likely to garner insubstantial fluff than non-media types. I would have expected profiles and articles specifically about if this person was personally notable. BLP requires that level of coverage. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Team 10 (group)[edit]

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

Appears to be a social media group that is semi-famous for being semi-famous. Notability is not inherited from its founder. Promotional. Too many red links for non-celebrities. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 30 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)} 06:56, 30 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)} 06:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete c'mon folks, one mention in People? If they get more than 15 minutes of fame some day, but far too little to say yet. W Nowicki (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Corporate spam. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing. Blatant WP:SPAM, most likely resulting from a supposed Internet meme (not really) that emerged from one of Paul's music videos. See the edit history on England, Arkansas. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the current reference (only one might I add) is simply not enough. Might be notable some day but it is TOO SOON for the time being. Fails GNG. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Erard[edit]

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

Non-notable politician Mserard313 (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Matt Erard[reply]

As the subject of this article, I propose that it be deleted for lack of notability. The only public office that I have ever held is a prior seat on the City of Detroit Downtown District Citizens' District Council - an office with no direct legislative authority, in contrast to the Detroit City Council. Wikipedia's Common Outcomes: Politicians page notes that even "city councilors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable. Likewise, it also notes that "losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted." Furthermore, this article contains multiple inaccuracies as a result of being very out of date. This article was previously deleted via PROD in January 2015, but resurrected in April 2016 when someone contested the past deletions of multiple Socialist Party politician articles. I don't think there would still be any objection to this article's deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mserard313 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIODELETE as the subject has requested deletion. The subject's primary claim to notability is his service as chair of the Socialist Party of Michigan, where much of the biographical details of this article can be found. --Enos733 (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIODELETE. His role with a statewide political party, rather than his committee service in Detroit, is the basis on which an article might be appropriate — but this article doesn't really focus on or source very much substance about that, and is overall far too strongly dependent on primary sources rather than reliable ones. And he's not so very high profile that we need an article about him, either — so this is exactly the kind of case where we should respect the subject's wishes. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NPOL and WP:BIODELETE. AusLondonder (talk) 18:51, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 03:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mythily Veendum Varunnu[edit]

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

Non notable movie with a non notable cast and crew. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Has no references, and searching provides for no coverage in reliable sources. Probably created by the production house themselves. Jupitus Smart 02:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 02:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 02:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searching finds nothing, so I would have to agree with the nom. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in reliable sources and no indication of passing WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and other editors. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 10:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per being TOO SOON. Apparently this will not be released until July 17th. If it receives coverage, a undeletion of the article can always be considered. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. --Elton-Rodrigues 23:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs)
Delete - Fails WP:NFILM.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Mz7 (talk) 05:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Olga López[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 02:04, 30 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)} 06:57, 30 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)} 06:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People Staring at Computers[edit]

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

Reason Pussandboots (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)This is not meeting the Wikipedia criteria for a notable artist or art project 1) No signifigant coverage 2) Nothing is in a permanent collection Seems in violation of 9.1 Self-promotion and publicity[reply]

Delete, WP:GNG. The BBC article doesn't convey notability to the art project in general, because it's specifically about the FBI visit. --Hirsutism (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:58, 30 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)} 06:58, 30 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)} 06:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with references currently there, it does not pass GNG. Only "interesting" reference is the BBC article and within that article, the art project is not even the main focus in any notable way (per the above). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Dobrenski[edit]

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

I proposed for deletion as an IP address; it was rejected by User:Atlantic306 on the basis that Rob Dobrenski is notable as an author. However, despite the numerous sources there is no assertion of notability in any of them.

Reference 1 - a listing on a database website; no assertion of notability
Reference 2 - primary source, the subject's own blog/website
Reference 3 - Same as reference 1
Reference 4 - deadlink
Reference 5 - deadlink (same website as Ref 4)
Reference 6 - primary source, the subject's own blog/website
Reference 7 - deadlink (same website as Refs 4 and 5)
Reference 8 - a list of physicians employed by a company; no assertion of notability
Reference 9 - primary source, the subject's own blog/website
Reference 10 - deadlink (same website as Refs 4, 5, 7)
Reference 11 - deadlink, dunceuponatime was associated with Dobrenski's shrinktalk.net
Reference 12 - deadlink, philalawyer was associated with Dobrenski's shrinktalk.net
Reference 13 - Review of Dobrenski's book - I don't know if Kirkus Reviews is considered a reliable source, but if this one article justifies a Wikipedia article, it would justify one about the book being reviewed rather than the author. It provides no material about Dobrenski himself.
Reference 14 - primary source, blogtalkradio - the subject's own podcast and defunct for years
Reference 15 - deadlink (same as Ref 11)
Reference 16 - a link to a different podcast by the subject; no assertion of notability
Reference 17 - Although Time magazine is notable, Dobrenski was quoted in one paragraph - this does not constitute "significant coverage" per WP:GNG
Reference 18 - deadlink, CNN may be notable but the article is neither extant [45] nor archived
Reference 19 - primary source, the subject's own blog/website

Rob Dobrenski does not appear to meet our notability guidelines for either authors or academics. Seth Kellerman (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with nom, the sources are not reliable, and the article looks like a paid editing puff piece by someone who's first edit was to edit their user page. Regardless, all the padded references do not add up to passing WP:GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:59, 30 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)} 06:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:59, 30 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)} 06:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after more consideration as the sources are not sufficient for WP:GNG although Kirkus reviews is reliable and a book article may possibly be notable. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references do not pass GNG at this time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Amaq News Agency#History. If any editor wishes content from the redirected article, they can go to the history of the said article and select the contents from the previous versions of this article. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 04:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baraa Kadek[edit]

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

Know for being killed in an air-raid; There are not enough sources to prove that he doesn't fail WP:BIO1E. 2 of the sources do not mention him and he is identified as "one of the founders" of the agency. This article was prodded as needing more sources none were added. Domdeparis (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-OPPOSE He is not known for being killed in an air raid, but for having founded two news agencies. One of those news agencies is the world's primary source of information from ISIS. The Amaq News Agency has its own page and this supports notability of its primary founder. He is the primary founder of Amaq rather than merely 'one of the founders'. The article has 5 sources including two from the main English newswires (AP and Reuters), and three covering the subject in Arabic, Italian and French. The editor who proposed deletion has, I must point out, a history of excessive proposing of deletion for pages which other editors feel clearly meet notability requirements. Instead of adding more sources themselves, they propose deletion of a perfectly good article. Kuching7102 (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Please remember not to turn this discussion into a criticism of other editors as this is usually counter-productive. I am a new pages patroller and we tend to get a lot of abuse when we nominate pages for deletion, this comes with the territory but if you feel that I need to be admonished for abusive deletion nominations then feel free to take it to ANI. End of off topic comments, if you want to pursue the conversation please do so on my talk page.)

Comment The agency may be notable but its founders are not inherently notably, WP:NOTINHERITED explains this quite clearly. I am quoting the source that you supplied (the Italian page says Era uno dei fondatori di "Amaq") when I said "one of the founders", the blog in French does not mention Baraa Kadek and if the translation of the article is correct, neither does the article in Arabic, so as I stated the only sources that you have provided talk about this person are following his death in an air-raid hence my reference to BIO1E. All the sources that I could find about this person mentioned him being killed in the air-raid and nothing before this. If you can supply in-depth sources that are independent to this one event I will happily withdraw my nomination.Domdeparis (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The French source does mention him, under the name Rayan Meshaal. (L’agence aurait été fondée par le Syrien Riyan Mesh‘al) (The agency was founded by the Syrian Riyan Meshal). And the Arabic source does too, in paragraph 5. (The most important media institution for the organization, Amaq Agency, was founded by Aleppo activist Rayan Meshaal and seven of his colleagues from Aleppo News).

Unfortunately with a lack of serious investigative reporting, especially in the English language, and the obvious secrecy of IS, it is always difficult to find sources about people prior to their death. That is by no means is evidence of 'one event' lack of notability. Pruning useless pages is important but please err on the side of caution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuching7102 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The French source is quoting the Arab source and it is in the conditional form in French "aurait été". Is the Arab source a reliable one? I cannot judge could you tell us what the source is so we can judge if it is reliable or not and can you tell us where we can find a source that says that these 2 names refer to the same person and one that is not just quoting a Facebook post? Domdeparis (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A new source has been added but this is again quoting a facebook post which is most definitely not a reliable source and it goes further to say in the second line of the article that "The extremist group itself has not reported the death of Baraa Kadek." So the sources in this article are almost exclusively based on a facebook report. Domdeparis (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amaq_News_Agency#History. Almost all of the coverage is essentially (in brief and) about his death by airstrike—what about his entire career in journalism? We don't have sufficient sourcing to do justice to this topic. Redirect to his existing mention in the aforementioned agency article. czar 18:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 2nd relisting in the hopes of getting some more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and selective merge to Amaq_News_Agency#History. Sourcing on this guy is thin, but what info on him exists is a useful part of the Amaq article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

King B (rapper)[edit]

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

DePRODed without addressing the issues. Concern was: Sources not reliable (unedited uploaded content) or not applicable to establishing notability. Also fails WP:MUSICBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:11, 30 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)} 07:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the references within the article do not jump out at me as being overly notable and I agree with what has previously been stated. A quick Google search did indicate that they have apparently opened for Tinashe ([46]) according to B's own Instagram (primary source), but I do not consider that enough on its own to warrant an article. I would consider this possibly TOO SOON, maybe notable in the future, but does not appear as such at the moment. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swave[edit]

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

Was dePRODed by IP without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: Sources not reliable (unedited uploaded content) or not applicable to establishing notability. Also fails WP:MUSICBIO.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:00, 30 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)} 07:02, 30 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)} 07:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG Rentier (talk) 23:29, 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 Withdrawn. I'm going to take EdJohnston's word for it, and ask he just do the linking. It still worries me that no one edits, but I trust Ed's opinion that it is balanced enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reactive oxygen species production in marine microalgae[edit]

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

Made 4.5 years ago by an account that has only made 5 edits, all other edits have been to clean up cites except one to remove one section. It is orphaned, way technical, and more of an essay than article. It went through AFC but I think that was a mistake. There are plenty of references, but it is the format and overly specific content (essay) that make this a problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 01:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a worthwhile topic, and reactive oxygen species are important. To cure the 'orphan' status I propose adding this article as a 'See also' to reactive oxygen species. To the extent that I understand the material, it looks to be a balanced treatment and it is using all the relevant technical terms correctly. For the scientific importance, see this Google Scholar search for 'reactive oxygen species in algae' which gets 159,000 hits. The article has some references as late as 2012 so it is not too dated. You could imagine that a couple of sentences about ROS in algae might be added to reactive oxygen species, which would be enough to justify a mention of this article there. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alonzo Arnold[edit]

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

Sources are either totally unreliable websites all using the same text, blogs, or interviews. No dedicated articles in mainstream media. Notability is not inherited. Fails any BLP related notability criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- just a promo blurb; nothing encyclopedically relevant here. This content can just as effectively be housed on the subject's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing shows that Arnold is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to show any notability via the references. A quick Google search does return results but none appear to be notable off hand and are mainly social media profiles sharing the same name. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lorong 1 Geylang Bus Terminal[edit]

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

Non notable bus terminal, Fails GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 00:29, 30 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)} 07:04, 30 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)} 07:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NOTTRAVEL.Charles (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with above, not notable. MB 05:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one larger article. I am not sure why are so many transport stop articles are being deleted. There is enough information including a photo, coordinates, opening date. This information is historically significant and Wikipedia should try to preserve this. If separate small articles are not possible, I will myself take out time and create one larger article which has all the information. But I am quite disappointed that so much information is being deleted.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already merged the content into List of bus stations in Singapore so that we can at least have one article which contains the information.--DreamLinker (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're being deleted because they're all not notable and all fail GNG, I've now nominated List of bus stations in Singapore (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus stations in Singapore) for the exact same reasons. –Davey2010^Talk 13:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, MB and Charlesdrakew. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Open access in Belarus[edit]

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

There being (according to an almost-unsourced text dump of an article) practically no open access in Belarus, I have to question the notability of this as a standalone article subject. There are a couple of others along these lines, but I'll nominate them separately to allow their merits to be discussed. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I briefly considered calling this a "soft delete" but it's been Proded before so that won't work.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 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 redirect to Open access in Africa. Content can be merged (selectively) from the history where desired. Sandstein 06:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Open access in Burkina Faso[edit]

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

There being (according to this largely-unsourced text-dump from a UNESCO site) practically no open access in Burkina Faso, I seriously question the notability of the topic. There are a few others along these lines, but I'll nominate them individually where necessary to avoid confusion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Open access by country seems a valid topic, through Burkina Faso... well, system bias, I don't want to say 'who cares'. Somebody clearly does. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there's an article on Open Access in Africa which, while it's not in the best of condition itself, could sensibly contain a sentence or two from this one. May be a mercy to both articles, frankly. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem like a valid potential merge target, if someone is interested. No objections against merge. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - GretLomborg (talk) 19:11, 23 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) 00:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar (web site)[edit]

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

gibraltar seems to be borderline reliable at most. as the article notes, it started out as a mailing list and was converted into a website. the process by which artists/bands are included is opaque and not transparent. 68.151.25.115 (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completed nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion on the nomination at this time. --Finngall ^talk 23:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable Flow 234 (Nina) talk 10:08, 27 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) 00:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The best source was a very weak mention by The Guardian. While they are certainly reliable, the type of coverage they gave it isn't very significant and all the other sources are non WP:RS. It simply doesn't pass WP:GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It's just short of a notable topic, not enough mention — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjjjjdddddd (talk • contribs)
Delete - Too soon maybe? ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Dookeran, Winston (2016). Crisis and Promise in the Caribbean: Politics and Convergence. Routledge. ISBN 9781317157748.

[2] Bernal, Richard (2015). The Influence of Small States on Superpowers: Jamaica and U.S. Foreign Policy. Lexington. ISBN 1498508170.

[3] Paltiel, Jeremy (2015). Facing China as a New Global Superpower. Springer. ISBN 9812878238.

[4] Kaczorowska-Ireland, Alina (2014). Kaczorowska-Ireland. Routledge. ISBN 1317654994.

[5] Rewizorski, Marek (2015). The European Union and the BRICS. Springer. ISBN 9783319190990.

[6] Castro-Rea, Julián (2016). Re-mapping the Americas: Trends in Region-making. Routledge. ISBN 1317066758.

[7] Berman, Eva (2015). Public Administration and Policy in the Caribbean. CRC Press. ISBN 1439892989.

[8] Putnam, Lara (2017). Caribbean Military Encounters. Springer. ISBN 1137580143.

[9] Nelson, Marcel (2015). A History of the FTAA: From Hegemony to Fragmentation in the Americas. Springer. ISBN 1137412755.

[10] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=mLkbSCeGPcgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Journalese&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC2tHnvO7UAhWFwlQKHW-YCDoQ6AEIJDAA#v=onepage&q=Journalese&f=false

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[1]