Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 23 March 25 March >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) –CaroleHenson (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Dharambir Agnihotri[edit]

Dr. Dharambir Agnihotri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was nominated for Prod, but the tag was removed by the author of the article. I nominated the article because: Local district politician without significant news or other reliable secondary sources, thus failing WP:POLITICIAN –CaroleHenson (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Agnihotri is a member of the unicameral legislature of Punjab. Punjab has 27 million people. So this is wquivalent to him being a Texas State Senator. The politician guidelines say all members of top level sub-national legislature are notable. This is probably more workable in federal republics like India than unitary states like France, but it clearly works her in the case of India.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here [1] is another source showing that Agnihotri was indeed elected to the Punjab Legislative Assembly. He was just elected last month. I get the impression he has taken office, but I am not 100% sure. Our guidelines say anyone elected to office at this level is notable, especially when we are dealing with a polity of 27 million people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, you're very experienced at this and so I will go with your opinion on this.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.A weak nomination and per the abundance of French-sources, the subject is not surely fringe.The main/lone(??) problem with the article seems to be the varying definitions and perspective of the same topic in different sources.But this argument fails to justify itself as a sole reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 03:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islamo-Leftism[edit]

Islamo-Leftism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability. TheDracologist (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subject seems to be covered in multiple reliable sources. Why would it lack notability? Am I missing something? Smmurphy(Talk) 00:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per neologism. There are extremely few mentions of it in reliable sources, and insufficient detail to write a neutral article. Even worse, the term has been used by different writers with different meanings. These range from a "fringe" Trotskyist theory (that is fringe even among Trotskyists) that Islamists play a progressive role in resisting imperialism to a neo-fascist conspiracy theory that mainstream politicians (who by fascist standards are leftists) secretly take their orders from the ayatollahs. Rather than enlighten, this brief article is just a slogan. It attempts to conflate progressive politics with Islamic extremism without explaining why. TFD (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TFD. Is Islamo-Leftism a real philosophy or a nasty epithet with which to tar one's political opponents? After reading this article many times, I couldn't tell you. The various "sources" that use the phrase don't appear to agree with one another about what it is. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 02:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leftists do indeed describe the term as an epithet. That too can be reliably sourced:
  • "Islamo-Gauchisme Decrypted" August 2, 2016, Laurent Bouvet (Professor of Political Science at the University of Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines.) In this interview, he breaks the code behind the use of the term, islamo-gauchisme.[2].E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except Badiou never used the term. Buckner spent exactly one paragraph discussing the concept and a novelist's use of the term is only significant if secondary sources mention it. TFD (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just checked the Badiou book cited in the article, Badiou DOESNOTLIKE this term, but he does use it as an example of bad-mouthing Muslims. He asserts that the phrase Islamo-leftist "originates with the police." Here: [3]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just sourced Michel Houellebecq's use of "Islamo-Leftism" in Submission to the Tom Brass essay Houellebecq, Anthropologist? I was reading Submission when I created this article two years ago. I came across this phrase, and wondered whether Houllebecq had coined it. I searched, and found quite a number of notable intellectuals using the phrase, so I created this article. A look at the talk page will show that quite a number of editors JUSTDIDNTLIKEIT then, but acknowledged that the soruces are solid, and did not take it to AFD. I see that quite a few WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT now. Searches in French and English - try gBook searches on the term in both - French and English - will be will persuade objective editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If added, Sand's blog post would easily be the most reliable source in the whole article. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well sourced article plenty of sources especially in French.Meets WP:GNG.--Shrike (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete LOL History repeats itself as farce: this is a Judeo-Bolshevism 2.0, but far less WP:NOTABLE than the original. The only adequately sourced section is Islamo-Leftism#History_of_term, which rubbishes the concept. I just checked the most imposing looking sources for kicks: The Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism, Princeton Uni Press(p. 25). This source tries to prove the existence of "Islamo-Leftism" with three footnotes: first one is about crazed hired-gun Carlos the Jackal; second is an obscure reference to a some Shiite "thinker" who allegedly mixed Islam with a "Marxist" and secular notion of history, somehow (no further elaboration is provided); the third footnote offers an abstract definition of Trotskyist entryism (footnote says nothing about Islam), and yet it is used in support of the author's specific allegations that Trotskyists had a strategy of embedding themselves in Islamist movements. Other source used here include a novel by Michel Houellebecq, together with some incomprehensible literary criticism of it. Fiction is not RS. This is the most retarded article I've ever come across on Wikipedia. All that's missing is a reference to "Leftist" Barack Obama being the "founder of ISIS". I appreciate humor though, so maybe my vote should have been "Keep LOL". Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop being obtuse. I don't like the theory of Judeo-Bolshevism either, but it is clearly notable by virtue of being discussed in numerous carefully-documented and non-fictional studies. This on the other hand is clear WP:NEO. The notability of Judeo-Bolshevism does not hinge on rants by philosopher Othmar Spann or the poet Ezra Pound, regardless of which academic Jew-hating institution printed them at the time. The sourcing here is skimpy indeed, with several basically saying: "WTF is this shit?" Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a search on this term + Valls (Prime Minister of France until last year) [7]. I really don't think you can dismiss this term as "obscure." E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - covered by plenty of reliable sources. The reasoning for this AfD nom is weak at best.. Probably non existing considering the three word rationale. Drive-by? This article covers WP:NEO as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yes, Nom is a new editor who hung similar drive-by tags on maybe a dozen pages, none of which looked likely to be deleted. Seems to have been acting in good faith, appeared to be just new and over-enthusiastic.
Note also that User:MShabazz, who argued for delete above, has previously edited the article, but had not tagged it for sourcing or notability, let alone brought it to AfD until that newbie did. He gives a weak, highly POV argument for deletion - the sources defining the term do not disagree is any substantive way. Leftists hate and wish to dismiss the term in a manner similar to the comments of User:Guccisamsclub, but the fact that intellectuals who DONOTLIKEIT nevertheless discuss it at some length supports notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pot, meet kettle. E.M. Gregory, please re-read and try to follow WP:BLUDGEON. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Leftists hate and wish to dismiss the term in a manner similar to the comments of User:Guccisamsclub" Of course you yourself are not politically motivated in any way, unlike those "Leftists." Thanks for the laugh. Guccisamsclub (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
People self-identify as "alt-right". Islamo-Leftism appears to be little more than an epithet. So not really comparable. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is wholly irrelevant.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you bring it up? Guccisamsclub (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant that its an epithet. I'm sure some alt-right type people think that term used for them is an epithet as well. The point being, both are a name of a sub group of the political party. Good luck going forward.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 19:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Article is along the line of Alt-right" My point was that it's not. "Alt-right" was coined by ... the "Alt-Right" — it is not an epithet in any way shape or form. Alt-right refers to an actual political movement that has been discussed at length in hundreds of RS. "Islamo-Leftism" more "along the lines of" Latte Liberal (the latter term being far more WP:NOTABLE). Note that both epithets have very close synonyms: Regressive Left and Champagne socialist, respectively. Both articles already exist, and summarize the underlying concepts. So IMHO, it's not just case of NOTNEO, but also NOTDICT as it applies to synonyms. I'll also note that — due to a lack of decent sourcing — the article is forced (as predicted by WP:NEO) into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The almost all of the sources in "Examples" section, do NOT actually use the term Islamo-Leftism. This is like starting an article titled "Dirty Commies", and then using Peat Bog Soldiers as an example of the relationship between Communists and dirt. To summarize the issues: WP:NOTNEO; WP:NOTDICT; WP:OR; WP:NOTABLE. The very few WP:RS's that discuss it (like Liberation) aren't even sure it is a real thing. Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After questioning of the sources, some editors have presented a use in a single sentence in one book, a footnote or two in another, etc. In order to write accurate and balanced articles we need reliable secondary sources that describe the topic in full. Certainly a scholar can look for all the references "islamo-leftism," determine what they meant, how popular the term is, whether there are alternative names, whether the term means different things, whether it is used by left or right, mainstream or fringe, whether it is politically correct etc. But until that is done, we can only rely on the original research of editors. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and until adequate sources are available it is more appropriate to Wiktionary. TFD (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This subject for sure is not fringe, there are considerable amount of published (particularly in French) material on the topic. On the other hand, I think we might be finding a better title than Islamo-Leftism. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thing is, Islamo-Leftism the neologism is just part of the broader subject (and more notable) in many political spheres (one example is Turkey, but there are plenty). An article on the neologism restricts the subject considerably to a tabloid level. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but those are opinions and interpretation of rules which your opponents above will certainly disagree with. There is a reason why the neologism is distinctly covered in a restrictif circle in the European French speaking world, it does not resist its broather context lets say of the Turkish or Kurdish leftist population of Germany (someone could be accused of original research by even suggesting it). Such an article isn’t stable in time because it was arbitrarily scalped to follow a neologism which either way could be muting for all we know. Maintaining the stance imposed by its title require considerable amount of resources due to its instability generating conflicts and edit warring. We should be concentrating on content rather than forms here, and for the long term I don't see any other options than relabeling it with a more appropriate title. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yahya Talatin: Do you want to help me take this page in that direction, perhaps by adding sections on Turkish political coalitions/movements linked as I did for the short-lived Islamo-Leftist political party in Belgium?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not for convictions contribute considerably (particularly in conflict generating articles) in name-space anymore. I can however help you in talkpages in providing sources, materials and criticism and it would be up to you and others to settle what goes or doesn't go where and why. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that in response, I have started an "Examples" seciton. the Iranian example is supported by scholars using the term "Islamo-Leftism." The Belgian and Palestinian are formal, if shot-lived, political coalitions formed between avowed Marxist political movements and avowed Islamist political movements. Article will, of course, either develop in the direction suggested by User:Yahya Talatin, or retreat to a narrower interpretation of WP:WORDISSUBJECT; I have no WP:CRYSTALBALL. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that the sources in the Iran section do use the term to refer to a group like People's Mujahedin of Iran, but that is quite different from the way the term is used in the rest of the article. Iran's "Islamo-Leftist" groups were not the products of any "Red-Green" alliances, but were merely characterized by ideologies that combined Socialism and Nationalism with appeals to Islam (like the FLN in Algeria). There was a de facto red-green "alliance" between Tudeh and Khomeinism in the sense that they did not see each other as enemies during the Iranian Revolution. So if you can find an RS that calls it "Islamo-Leftism", it might fit in with rest of the article. But at the moment, all you are actually doing is creating a COATRACK article about the "relationship between Islam and Leftism," because the term "Islamo-Leftism" is both hopelessly vague and rarely used. Don't you see this as problematic? Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leftists in Iran formally supported Khomeini's Islamic fundamentalist revolution; Leftists in Europe, particularly in France supported Khomeini's Islamic fundamentalist revolution. An enormous literature exists on this particular Islamo-Leftist alliance, some of which uses this phrase retrospectively (phrase was not coined until ~ 20 years after the Khomeini's revolution.) Just fyi, many phenomenon exist decades or centuries before a word for them is coined, see: bureaucracy, which the Byzantine Empire had even before Max Weber.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @E.M.Gregory: Chronology has nothing to do with it. My point was that: (a) your sources are referring to disparate phenomena when they use "Islamo-Leftism"; (b) The stuff about Palestine and Belgium is OR in that none of the sources use the term at all. (On Europe and Iran: The most prominent defender of Khomeini's revolution (Khomeneism proper, not the broad anti-Shah revolution) in Europe was Michel Foucault, who an anti-Marxist and an anti-Communist at the time. Marxists and Socialists around the world generally hated Khomeini after he assumed power.) Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Guccisamsclub, I think (opinions aside) it would be relevant if you could comment on the way the material could be addressed. Would you be accepting relabeling the article? What conditions would you be setting? How the content (not the form) survives is what interest me. A broader article which covers left and Islam would be in my opinion a good approach. Most similar conflicts are due to forms which require inclusions and exclusion criteria specific to editors and their different backgrounds. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Here's the problem: a hypothetical article that explicitly (with title change) covers the "relationship" between Islam and the Left clearly fails WP:SCOPE. That's why there are no articles about overlaps between two huge categories, like Jews and Leftism or even Jews and Bolshevism (though Jewish Left is a legit topic — note the difference in scope). Currently, this article covers the "relationship" between Islam and the Left implicitly (in the examples section), creating a poorly-scoped WP:COATRACK of an article, wherein editors tack on "examples" of "Islamo-Leftism" via WP:OR. This is just unambiguously wrong, no less wrong than someone trying to tack on — Metapedia-style — "real-world examples" of the relationship between Jews and Bolsheviks to the Judeo-Bolshevism article. So the only possible option seems to be to list the various usages of the term. The problem here is that the term is typically used as a vague shorthand for different kinds of overlaps between Islam and the Left (depending on who's using it, and in which cultural context). But here you come up against WP:NEO and WP:NOTDICT: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what RS say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." The fact that French politician Manuel Valls has used this as a polemical shorthand for some Western Leftists' sympathies with Islam, while a couple of English-speaking scholars have used it as a descriptive shorthand (for the ideology of certain political groups in Iran like the People's Mujahedin of Iran) does not speak well for its encyclopedic value. All this simply demonstrates the term's underlying shallowness and inconsistency. It's just a one of thousands of multipurpose hyphenated shorthands, which typically fail WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Based on the above, I think the article should be deleted, but if it is kept it should stick strictly to the term, preferably to one more or less definite usage of the term (either French polemical usage or English descriptive usage, but not both). Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a random google search, with little regard for what the term represents. The meaning is not consistent across your sources and it is also relatively shallow. Novels are not RS, and half the sources you cited are already in the article. Since wikipedia articles are not aggregators of google search results, I'd like see how you'd actually go about integrating these sources into the article. Guccisamsclub (talk) 04:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not simply a google search, but links to specific sources. No, if anyone cares to look at these books, there is essentially only one meaning, and the sources can be used on this page. Note that the books are secondary sources. My very best wishes (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your first source refers to a Trotskyist theory that Islam would become "the spearhead of a new insurrection...against global capitalism." Your second source refers to left-wing supporters of the Ayatollah such as the People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK). Your third source refers to "the partnership between leftists and Islamists." Those are three entirely different meanings. TFD (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TFD: I basically agree, but #2 refers to People's Mujahedin of Iran who fought against the Ayatollahs for decades, so it's totally and irreconcilably different from the others. MVBW: #5 is WP:FICTION; #1, #4 are both Bruckner's polemical essays, and the idea that "Islamist Revolution" is a significant tenet of modern Trotskyism is WP:FRINGE (maybe there's a tiny sect with a dozen members that actually believes something approaching this); #6 is a brief and offhanded dismissal of the term; #3 is a brief mention. You need sources that actually try to flesh out the term (that's a policy requirement(!)—see WP:NEO, usage is not enough). The only source you've offered that meets this requirement is Bruckner's polemic. I suppose that, after you add the Liberation source, one could have an excuse for an article, but the article will be very short, uninformative and WP:FRINGE. Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not an expert, but I think the meaning of the expression is essentially the same in all sources, namely, fusion between the left and religious radicalism - as was said here. OK, let's check another RS. It tells:
"Bruckner doesn't see the problem as French-only, noting that Islamo-Leftism emanated from the British Socialist Workers Trotskyites and fanned out Europe-wide. They saw Islam as a process to "spearhead a new insurrection in the name of the oppressed". To the Left Wing intellectual, who no longer knows how to understand the world and whose Communist gods have all died, there is no more hope. Their current focus now is the devil incarnate – the US and its pariah Israel.
I do not see the People's Mujahedin of Iran as something entirely different. They are actual Islamic leftists in flesh, which only makes this subject (as opposed to merely a neologism) even more interesting and notable. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the first definition, the ayatollahs and the MEK are part of the Islamo-leftist narrative, but neither the Trotskyists, the ayatollahs or the MEK are Islamo-leftists, since Islamo-leftism is a left-wing theory about Islam, not a political group. Under the second definition, neither the Trotskists or the ayatollahs are islamo-leftists, but the MEK are. Under the third definition, all of them are islamo-leftists, but only when the Islamic groups are working with the Trotskyists. (Note: I realize the MEK oppose the ayatollahs, but the author mentions them when they supported them.) If you think there should be an article about actual Islamic leftists in the flesh, there already is. (See Islamic socialism.) As someone who thinks left-wing refers to anyone who didn't vote for Donald Trump, you should appreciate the more precise term of "socialism." TFD (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiktionary is not RS, and you just quoted an unscholarly and bombastic review of Brucker's book. Too much hinges on Bruckner, himself a bombastic polemicist who has no expertise on either Islam or Socialism. TFD has done a very good job describing the obscene category errors. Bruckner's usage designates narrative about the Left and Islam. Hunter 's usage (Iran scholar) designates specific political parties which had, as a matter of historical fact, explicitly combined Socialism with appeals to Islam. Likewise, some political philosophers and ideologues have written about Judeo-Bolshevism, while professional historians have written about the Bund. Both are ostensibly about the "fusion of Jewishness and radical Leftism", but only the latter refers to definite political movement. They are NOT the same thing, either politically or scientifically. And for the record, saying that MEK are "radical Islamists" and that the Trotskyists are Islamisms' fifth-columnists is WP:FRINGE (if you disagree, try inserting this stuff into the relevant articles and see how fast it gets reverted). Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guccisamsclub Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. You have used a series of arguments, meeting opinions that you DONTLIKE with mockery and by calling editors who disagree with you "obtuse." When a point you make is refuted, you introduce new objections. You are so set in your dislike of the idea of an Islamo-leftist alliance, that you seem unable to WP:LISTEN to fellow editors. Note that none of us is obliged to WP:SATISFY all of your ideas of what this article should be. Articles evolve under consensus and the work of multiple editors, as this one may. At present, however, WP:WORDISSUBJECT and you should put down your WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • E.M.Gregory, considering that you have made the most edits to this page, it is likely you who is bludgeoning the process. Why not take your own advice? There's no need to refute every comment on this page. Multiple times. (But I know you will reply to this because you seem unable not to get the last word in.) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, pot meets kettle. The personal attack here are largely come from you (the false accusations above are yet another example). Right after I cast my vote, outlining several reasons for why the article may be unencyclopedic, you immediately dismissed it nothing more than IJUSTDONTLIKE, without addressing most (if any) of my substantive points. That's why I said "don't be obtuse" (linking "obtuse" to WP:LISTEN). You later said that my argument was nothing more than politically-motivated ("leftist") IJUSTDONTLIKE-ism. You have taken a similar tack in responding to the arguments of other editors. That's not a "refutation". In point of fact, I actually WP:LISTENED to and though about the points brought up by others, and think my comments fully bear that out. I have my doubts about whether you've done that. That's why my replies do not consist of saying exactly the same thing in exactly the same way. This does not mean that my points have been "refuted": debates develop, unlike unlike monologues. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As written on the page, Hunter classifies the People's Mujahedin of Iran an Islamo-leftist organization.[15] I can't check the source (the book), but assuming good faith here, this is actually a proof (in WP:RS sense) that People's Mujahedin of Iran belong to the subject of "Islamo-leftism". My very best wishes (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now linked to 3 of the 4 books in which Shireen Hunter discusses the Islamo-Leftist alliance in the Iranian Revolution, and added a passage form one of these books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for significantly improving this page and the sourcing [9]! Now I do not have any doubts that the page should be kept. My very best wishes (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory:*Can you please share a direct quote from Hunter? AFAIK, Hunter describes some Iranian groups as because Islamo-leftists because they had (opportunistically or otherwise) incorporated Islamic ideas into their Leftist ideology (and vice versa), not because they were in a temporary "alliance" with Khomeinism (they actually took up arms against it). That's why Hunter makes a distinction between Islamists, Islamo-Leftists, and the secular Left. If Islamo-Leftism refers to taking part in a revolution where Islamism played a major role, then they would all be "Islamo-Leftists", including Tudeh (which I've never heard described as "Islamo" anything). Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, I think a good approach would be that those (particularly Guccisamsclub) who believe the article should be deleted propose an alternative which would maintain the information somehow or somewhere for those who think the information should go somewhere. I am under the impression that too much resources is put into the form rather than content here. I personally believe that in anything as long as there is just one opponnent it means that it isn’t yet stable. I do not adhere to the majority rule but the one of a true consensus.
Guccisamsclub, since the vote isn't achieving consensus (by brute numbers of votes), it would be constructive to propose an alternative which would be more acceptable for you. The wrong approach would be that everyone attempts to enforce their number 1 choice… a solution would be that each present a second alternative… their number two (and search for an overlap). A more heleocentric approach which places at the center the concensus (monotheistic-like) rather than our own personal opinions (polytheistic-like). I do realize however that this would technically go against the purpouses of a ‘’request for deletion’’ vote. This is in my opinion the only possible option in the long term. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yahya Talatin: I'll just quote myself: " if it is kept it should stick strictly to the term, preferably to one more or less definite usage of the term (either French polemical usage or English descriptive usage, but not both)."Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC) (Polemical usage refers to Bruckner, descriptive usage refers to Hunter). There is no consensus that they are talking about the same thing at all when they use the term. At the moment, only TFD and myself have actually tried to argue this point; others have merely asserted that they are the same without much evidence. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 23:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added additional search-bars (top of page) to assist editors in seeing the scope of this WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Note that Wikipedia's established rules and procedures do not include reaching a compromise solution that satisfies every opinion voiced. I hope to have time later this week to improve article using sources in English, French and other languages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems well referenced and fairly well written. I see no reason to delete this. The bizarrely enthusiastic argument taking place here only serves to highlight interest in the subject and should probably be taken to the talk page. Mortee (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the relisting was done by a relatively inexperienced editor (User:J9476) whose talk page contains requests from fellow editors to cease closing and/or relisting AfD discussions until he gains more experience.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 not entirely sure what this is suppose to be, but there is certainly consensus to keep these. If you want the article moved that's entirely different, and you can find move-requests here. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R&L banks - Culture clash[edit]

Left Bank (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Right Bank (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Culture clash - Physical Geography and Geophysics descriptors Hi-jacked by Cultural references:

My primary case was made in the RFD, but most simply, XXXX Bank (disambigulation) forms force everyone else in the world to deal with Paris, (re: Left Bank & Right Bank), a place which is nice, but not germane to physical geography, or the other uses disabig'd. It hardly seems fair to other river cities such as Pittsburgh, New York, London, or New Orleans. (ad nauseum) Making the left bank and right bank terms a disabig is a better solution, provided the dic-def physical geology term is first in the disambig page — or keep the status quo, and use them as soft redirects, which is pretty much why we have the {{soft redirect}} template, so far as I can figure from what I recall in discussions 11-13 years ago in Meta-wiki. FrankB 20:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My logic and point in this was simple. Make Left Bank, Right Bank the disambig pages pointing as they already do. Freeing 'lower case' left bank and right bank for physical geography, geophysics, and geography descriptions. Currently, Godsy would have descriptions in town, road, and mountain articles use forms like [[left bank (disambigulation|left bank]] every time there is need to describe such a geophysical attribute... which is to say things which should be in any article where a stream is in the local geography!. So do reconsider, Uanfala, Station1, and Shhhnotsoloud, and to your point, the problem is the same, if there are no dic-def leads in overlapping terms uses, then we have to build a link to use a technical term to wiktionary, so involves a ton of extra characters obfusticating the flow of the descriptive sentence... which are often convoluted enough as it is! See where and how Left bank (edit talk links history) and Right bank (edit talk links history) are used forsooth! // FrankB 16:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fabartus: Actually, as I state in the rfd, I think left bank and right bank should redirect to Bank (geography). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 16:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fabartus: This forum is for proposals to delete pages. If you do not want to actually delete the disambiguation pages, you are simply in the wrong place. Station1 (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Station1: - I've been hanging XFD tags since 2005, so I didn't stutter. With Left Bank and Right Bank getting the contents of those suffixed by "(disambiguation)", there is no purpose in keeping the latter group. // FrankB 00:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to do, but if you're trying to have the content that is currently at "Left Bank (disambiguation)" appear under the title "Left Bank", that is a move request. It doesn't make sense to me to attempt to delete "Left Bank (disambiguation)" before its contents are moved, because disambiguation of the term "Left Bank" is necessary, whatever page title it appears under. Station1 (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Left Bank (disambiguation) and Right Bank (disambiguation) to Left Bank and Right Bank respectively, unless a strong argument can be made that Rive Gauche and Rive Droite are the primary topic (in which case these pages should be kept as is). Most of the disambiguated items have both words capitalized, which makes that appropriate for the title per WP:DIFFCAPS. That aside, as I stated in the related RfD: in the mainspace, {{soft redirect}} should only be used to invite readers to visit a page on a different Wikimedia project. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this is a move request, it's the wrong forum. WP:RM should be used. Obviously the pages should not be deleted. Station1 (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a regular at Afd and I have to admit: I have no idea what this is supposed to be. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No policy reason to delete. What does need deleting is the latest edit adding a non-standard preamble that could be obtained by the linked dictionary-definition. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) –CaroleHenson (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eline McGeorge[edit]

Eline McGeorge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are not sufficient sources to establish WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. There are a couple news, a couple items from Google custom search, and some books where she's mentioned, but not in any great extent. –CaroleHenson (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. I sure there's a google tutorial somewhere. I see page after page after page of results, many from arts magazines ... ten pages of results in and we're getting to the Norwegian press. This is another very very poor AfD. Perhaps another close read of WP:BEFORE would be helpful? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Tagishsimon, I agree that nom is slightly hasty. At same time, this was actually tough to find significant sources for. But... she is in three permanent collections. TA-DA! meets WP:ARTIST. CaroleHenson, I suggest withdrawal of nomination to save us all some time, please.198.58.162.200 (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable artist. Station1 (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator, (non-admin closure) . TonyBallioni (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Oman[edit]

Nathan Oman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
Nom hereby withdrawn by nominator per info contributed by User:Johnpacklambert (diff) rgding academic book authorship.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The guidelines at wp:BIO say this blp should stay nevertheless this guideline should be rewritten with respect to adjust WP to the Realpolitik existence of the dominant stream of editing thought that is oblivious to the actual current version of wp:PROF or else believing it likewise should be changed and holds that potential blp subjects teaching at universities must "pass wp:PROF." Oman by such lights definitely does not, having published no books; he owes what little notability he has to his function as a public intellectual via his published web content and mainstream media articles/commentary. Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While I would argue he is notable as a public intelectual he actually passes Academic notability point 5. At least my initial instinct is holding a named professorship at the College of William and Mary, the second oldest institution of higher learning in the United States and one of the more prestigious, counts for point 5.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here [10] is a link showing Oman is the holder of the Cabell Chair.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment additionally I am fairly certain it is more rare for legal scholars to publish books as opposed to historians. I say that latter because this feels to me like a pointy nomination in response to the deletion of the article on Benjamin E. Park.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
reply - Long-time users habitually cite "Subject fails wp:PROF" even in the face of the fact that the wp:PROF guideline itself is designed merely as an alternate means of establishing notability in cases where a potential academic bio subject doesn't prove notable otherwise, viz., through there being in-sufficient reliable secondary sources per wp:BIO. These users' awareness of this language at these guidelines indicates their lack of candor in promoting their favored work around WP's actual guidelines. This needs to be fixed by rewording the guidelines at wp:BIO and wp:PROF, etc., to indicate that academics and the like are to be held to a higher standard in certain cases than other potential subjects. (I've decided to copy and paste the above part of this paragraph to Jimbo's talkpage and point to same at WP's Village Pump.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the link: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Suggested_fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually Oman has written The Dignity of Commerce: Markets and the Moral Foundations of Contract Law, so the claim he has no books published is also untrue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here [11] are the google scholar results for Oman. I have no clue if this is enough to make him a notable legal scholar or not, but he is much more than a public intellectual. He is also a legal scholar.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Life, Love & Lies. Bishonen | talk 21:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best I Ever Had (State of Shock song)[edit]

Best I Ever Had (State of Shock song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-noticeable song by a rather non-noticeable band. Song was played lots in Canada back in 2008,2009,2010 and occasionally in 2011,2012,2013,2014 but largely because of Canada's unique radio content rules called CanCon that requires 35% percent (percentage can increase depending on the hour of the day) of songs played on Canadian radio stations. Cancon often plays Canadian artists/bands that are not noticeable even in Canada or songs by both noticeable/relatively noticeable/non-noticeable artists/bands that re non-noticeable. I know this because I listen to Canadian stations almost everyday as I live in Red Deer, Alberta and I listen not just Red Deer or Alberta stations, I listen stations from nationwide, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax, Whitehourse, Vancuover, you name it and since 2014 I have never heard this song. That is 3 years not being played on Canadian stations meaning it has largely lost it's noticeability even within Cancon. --Carrie Fisher Eternal Legacy (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC) — Carrie Fisher Eternal Legacy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article currently asserts, with source backing it, that it hit #25 on the Canadian charts? Charting that high on a National chart is usually a good indicator of notability. The album it came from apparently was certified Gold too. Is there really not sourcing out there? Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, Keep, I was able to find this source [12] confirming this song did hit #25 on top 100 in Canadian. The issue with source finding here is that "Best I Ever Had" is a very common phrase, but it is the Drake song Best I Ever Had (Drake song) which over shadows this song making source finding very difficult. Valoem talk contrib 16:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There should be better sources to keep this. A HighBeam search found [13] which might be helpful. The charting reference in the article worked for me. Gab4gab (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong source giving the song significant coverage, not to mention I just noticed the nominator is an SPA with no other contributions, so I've changed my vote to Keep. Valoem talk contrib 20:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valoem, Some important things you need to understand is that even though this did hit #25 on top 100 in Canada, that was 9 years ago and since it's popularity and notability has severely died down. It may have notable but only for a time. It was played occasionally after 2008 for about 4/5 years but life has now moved on from this song. Last time I have heard this song on a Canadian station (I listen tones of Canadian stations from all 13 provinces and territories. This song was only popular in Canada) was about 2012/2013. That gives the fact that it's been around 5 years since this song could even be called unpopular but notable. After this song's heyday in 2008 so speaking liked mid to late 2009, and 2010 I talked with my family and friends (most who live in Canada) and only about 25% would recognize this song and now that it is 8/7 years later that number is even less. Plus this song's temporary notability was only for Canada and most people who use English Wikipedia are not Canadians. Extraordinarily few Americans, British, Australians, Irish, or anywhere in the English speaking World or by foreign language people who do speak English would this song be listened let alone looked up on Wikipedia. --Carrie Fisher Eternal Legacy (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity may come and go but Wikipedia notability is not temporary. See WP:NTEMP which says "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Gab4gab (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory of "currently popular" things. There is no such thing as "used to be notable but isn't anymore" — if a thing was ever genuinely notable enough for a Wikipedia article, then it stays notable enough for a Wikipedia article until the end of time unless our basic standards for what constitutes "notable enough for a Wikipedia article" evolve past it. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Life, Love & Lies. Even a song that charted can still not qualify for a standalone Wikipedia article if we can't reliably source considerably more substance about the song than this, and a song is not exempted from having to pass WP:GNG just because it technically attained a chart position. Nominator's argument is completely wrongheaded about this — if notability is properly established by reliable sources, then we don't care a whit whether it was attained last week, last year, last decade, last century or last millennium. What's determinative here is the lack of sourcing to properly support that it ever warranted its own standalone article in the first place, not whether the song is still played on the radio as much as it used to be. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 22:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We fly again[edit]

We fly again (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded with a rationale on the article's talk page. Searches turned up virtually nothing to show it passes WP:GNG, and it clearly does not pass WP:NFILM. Onel5969 TT me 14:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This project was presented in over 10 film festivals around the world and a people want to know more about the movie and future awards that will receive being in the international film circuit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladxela (talk • contribs) 14:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It also available for renting on amazon here https://www.amazon.com/We-Fly-Again-Denise-Black/dp/B06W2KVHTN Vladxela (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC). If Amazon is not an important and reliable source then IDK what to say anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladxela (talk • contribs) 14:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here you can have a director statement about the movie in one of the most important documentary film festivals from Spain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69Lsn5CXFrg&t=4s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladxela (talk • contribs) 14:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of notability as evidenced by no significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Amazon does not qualify as a source because it is only selling a product. They sell a wide range of films that can be either notable or not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Sources need to be at least one step removed from the topic, such as reviewing the film or reporting about activity related to it as part of their usual coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 22:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - like Alexandru Vlad (film director), this is a promotional page with very little substance, and no indication through independent sources of meeting WP:NFILM. - Biruitorul Talk 00:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't researched this enough to form an opinion, but I do note the similarity between the director's name, Alexandru Vlad and the username User:Vladxela. Autobiographical promotion, perhaps? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  08:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shafeeq Gigyani[edit]

Shafeeq Gigyani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are not sufficient sources to establish WP:GNG, and perhaps this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. –CaroleHenson (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC) Need to be publish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.255.7.35 (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Change of username & a new SPA does little to conceal that this is a recreation of User:Shafeeqgigyani's autobiography. It sails close to the line of sockpuppetry. Delete for a narcissistic lack of notability. Cabayi (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Royal House of Grace International Church. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

King David Zilly Aggrey[edit]

King David Zilly Aggrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Stanleytux (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Google News/Newspapers/Books/Scholar search links above suggest that the only notable thing about him is that he has (for now) a Wikipedia article. If he is notable under another name then it isn't obvious. Dropping the possibly spurious title "King" still only yields one hit. I have no strong objection to a redirect, if this really is the name he is known by, but if the title "King" is spurious and this article name is only being used because the article is salted under other names then a redirect might not help anybody. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on the total lack of sources (both in the article and that are able to be found.) Being an "apostle" is basically a job title in a church and nothing more. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant player in Nigerian politics, head of very large church, sources available but "King" should perhaps be removed, I find him more often referred to as "Apostle". "Zilly Aggre" is a more useful search term. editors clicking on the new search term that I added above will find sources form which to expand the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symsyn[edit]

Symsyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was previously deleted via the PROD method. However, when I saw a page with this name started on the simplewiki, I realized an article about this could be useful and posted to RFU, and the page was restored. Unfortunately, it seems hard to find reliable sources about this topic - maybe this was the reason it got PROD'ed in the first place. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking relevant, independent references - the only ref provided does not mention Symsyn. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical: If an inventor creates a virtual widget and defines it in sufficient detail to obtain a patent (e.g. an algorithm), doesn't that by its nature make this widget an undeniable fact of existence, thereby obviating corroboration?

Are the links with Symsyn at [14] relevant to this discussion? A57795779 (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is deying its existence, just its notability. Links from other parts of Wikipedia don't mean a lot, but independent sources will be of value! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest - google "symsyn programming language" (with and without quotes) A57795779 (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use the links above. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Complete lack of notability for what seems to be a one-person effort. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 13:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. What is on trial here? Is it Symsyn? (Is Symsyn not 'worthy' of Wikipedia?) Is it Symsyn's creator? Is it the article? Is it the article's original author? A57795779 (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has notability requirements which set a threshold for the amount of independent coverage a subject needs to be included. See WP:N. The references need to be reliable, a specific term discussed in WP:RS. Without such references, an article on any software topic is at risk of being deleted.Dialectric (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite. The syntax and operation of Symsyn are unique among modern languages. While perhaps not notable in the strict Wikipedia sense, many sites in several languages offer free downloads of the ebook. It is referenced on programming language specific sites, e.g.Rosettacode. At least, it should be included in the List of Programming Languages. A57795779 (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be a hobbyist project with no mention in any reliable sources. (Note there are reliable sources discussing software called "SymSyn", but that appears to be completely unrelated software–the SymSyn discussed by reliable sources is software used to design electronic circuits–see e.g. this paper) There is an ebook about Symsyn sold on Amazon.com, but as far as I can tell it is a self-published book, and hence not a reliable source and of little value in establishing notability. SJK (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify. Kakashi123456789 requested that it be kept, so I'm going to go ahead and just boldly move it to the draft space. You can find it here. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 17:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23 (CJ Fly EP)[edit]

23 (CJ Fly EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable EP Jennica✿ / talk 00:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :The article has a reliable source of an online hip-hop and alternative music website Okayplayer http://www.okayplayer.com/news/cj-fly-23-mp3.html . If this source isnt enough for notability , please proceed with the deletion of the article 32zel (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: A single source is not enough to establish notability; ideally, there should several sources that support significant coverage of the subject matter in multiple third-party, reliable sources. Just wanted to clarify this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy The meaning of the ep is significant in CJ Fly's career Kakashi123456789 (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Macintosh. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 03:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mac[edit]

The Mac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a hoax, I could not find any sources indicating this publication ever existed, even the usual catalogs, Gbooks, brings up nothing relevant. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I doubt that this was a hoax. Future publish a vast range of magazines and have always been known for their rapid response in creating new titles, or removing or merging titles that didn't sell as hoped. This seems to be one of those and fits in well with Future's direction at that time. Infamously they published a huge number of new titles in the dot com boom, and removed an equally huge number as they recognised over expansion when that bubble burst.
This isn't the point though. We're not here as Future's corporate archivists, but to cover WP:N titles. If this didn't pass WP:GNG from external comment, then it doesn't belong here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd oppose that. We already have 27 redirects to Macintosh, we don't need another. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a redirect, after all redirects are cheap, and this one does not meet WP:COSTLY, but I'd prefer this be deleted first for if we just directly redirect it, we will be preserving a hoax in the page history. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This could also be a plausible redirect for The Mack; suggest redirecting to the disambiguation page Mac. Trivialist (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the author of this page and a one-time subscriber to the magazine I assure you it's not a hoax (!). Indeed I have all of the issues in my loft and will post a photos of their covers tomorrow if it will help. — Nicholas (reply) @ 14:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD G3 Maybe it a blatant hoax Speedy requested under G3 2607:FB90:6640:6BA0:9200:E422:A42F:72F4 (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Lourdes. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 20:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this may or may not be notable, but it's not a hoax, just a moderately difficult title to Google for. Passing mentions: [15], [16], [17], David Clarke (2 September 2003). Pro-Social and Anti-Social Behaviour. Routledge. pp. 132–. ISBN 978-1-134-58754-4., [18], [19]. If it's deleted on notability grounds I would make the page a redirect to Macintosh. "The Mac" is a common way to refer to that line of computers. Mortee (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(or the disambiguation page Mac, as Trivialist suggests) Mortee (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KaisaL (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dunav osiguranje[edit]

Dunav osiguranje (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough references to qualify for notability guidelines TJH2018talk 21:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC) *Speedy Delete Per CA7M, less than notable un-sourced company.L3X1 (distant write) 21:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:BEFORE: If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources; If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. and The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, none of which has apparently been performed by the nominator or by L3X1. This is the largest Serbian insurance company, traded at BELEX and worth €260M in assets. A mere news search produces 3300 results, which include SEE News, Blic [20][21], [22], [23], [24]; SEEbiz, Politika, InSerbia, all of that just from 2016-17, with mentions even in Financial Times. The current state of referencing is far from stellar, with most sources and links going to their own website, but that alone is not a reason for deletion per policy: per WP:NEXIST Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. No such user (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to various searches in Latin script, only one of which is mentioned above, producing thousands of potential sources, Cyrillic script searches could also be run. Colin McTroll (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not OK that the article only cites references from the company itself, but it's equally obvious that this is a note-worthy business. Mortee (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capt. Raju. L3X1 (distant write) 00:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know if i have a right to give a vote because of objectivty (i have created this page). I have to write here that Dunav osiguranje is one of key companies in Serbian economy. The company is famous because of it is the leader in the insurance market of Serbia and because of social responisblity. Dunav osiguranje gives big donations/sponsorships to medical institutions, art (there is a section Dunav ars - paintings, many movies were sponsored by Dunav osiguranje etc.), sports, science etc. This reponsible, supstantial developement concept is unique in the Balkans region. I agree that more references should be in this article and i will work on it if this article stays on wiki. I am sorry for some errors in typing, i will correct tham in the future period. Best regards, Mihailo79 (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wikipedia is not for marketing of non-notable marketing services. Bishonen | talk 21:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grazitti Interactive[edit]

Grazitti Interactive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1st ref is an Alexa ranking— not a reliable measure of notability; 2nd ref mentions the name of the company in a list, where it scored 62nd out of 100 (WP:Trivial mention); 3rd ref is to a quote by the company's CEO, and contains nothing at all about the company; 4th ref looks to be something like a directory listing— contains no meaningful information about the company; 5th and 6th refs are not accessible to the public under any terms (not verifiable); 7th ref contains only a mention of the company being a sponsor for an event; 8th and 9th ref are like the 7th (more sponsorship mentions/ press releases). This looks to me like a marketing company using Wikipedia to market itself better; I suspect the author (an WP:SPA) has an undeclared WP:COI because I can see no other reason for creating this piece. A Google search produces Facebook, LinkedIn, a Crunchbase listing of company information that looks like it was written by the company, and long list of directory listings for the company. I could find no non-trivial discussion in reliable independent verifiable secondary sources. KDS4444 (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have already made changes in the content and tried to add some ref links. Alexa is also used by some of the other Wikipedia pages. There are only handful company who sponsor such events. Don't think it's marketing of company to list this information. If there is issue with certain links than those can be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrysteven (talk • contribs) 04:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You modified one of the existing references here. That Alexa is used in other articles is not relevant to this article. And company press releases about company sponsorship of an event are quintessential examples of references that are completely lacking in independence. You can't make yourself notable by writing about yourself. Lastly, what is your relationship with this company? Are you an employee? Please explain. Thanks. KDS4444 (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. No references besides sponsorship of events which by itself does not qualify for notability. Arunram (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can remove the references of sponsorship of events if it does not qualify for notability. There are few other links in the article which can be fine for notability. I can make the changes so that the article no longer has the problems stated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrysteven (talk • contribs) 11:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for the response. I'm ready to remove links or information which anyone think is not notable as per Wikipedia.Henrysteven (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 12:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bishonen | talk 21:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sesame Street Bedtime Storybook[edit]

The Sesame Street Bedtime Storybook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of notability, is simply a long and detailed description of the contents of the book without any indicator of how it is significant as a book. Although I can't find any copyvio, it reads like it was copied verbatim from somewhere (probably a print source.) Although other articles exist about individual Sesame Street books (see Template:Sesame Street), these do not give any indication of notability either, with one exception. A quick search on Google Books/News does not bring up any coverage of the specific book so it seems to fail book notability. Perhaps good enough for a mention in an article listing Sesame Street books, but not really for a standalone article. PROD was removed, hence nominating. Mabalu (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added it to that template, and the appropriate category, so as to get some more attention to this. These things go rather more quickly when editors working in the subject area are aware of an article's existence. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I PRODed this as "fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). No sources, plot-only description". Mduvekot (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've found two reviews which is technically enough but I'm still unsure as to whether or not this really merits an individual article, given that there's ultimately not much here as a whole. If we had another review or another good source it might be a different story, but this is just a little too weak for my tastes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The book, Look What I Found, shows so much less, and yet there's no argument as to why it should be deleted. I would be willing to cut down the descriptions of each story if that helps. jbl1975
jbl1975, as I pointed out in the original nomination, only one of the other books on the template really showed any proper sourcing to demonstrate its notability. They could all equally well be nominated for deletion under the exact same criteria as this one. That other stuff exists doesn't automatically confer acceptability, it simply means that other people's articles slipped under the radar, or simply haven't been spotted by one of the deletionists yet. Actually, I just PRODed a few of the others, thanks to your mentioning them - hopefully if they are notable (which I didn't see evidence for on a quick search for sources), then someone will sort them out, but it doesn't look promising. Mabalu (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 11:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KaisaL (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry William Purcell[edit]

Kerry William Purcell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. WP:BLP of a writer, with some advertorial overtones and citing no reliable source coverage about his writing at all -- until I cleaned it up just now for WP:ELNO compliance, the "referencing" here consisted entirely of embedded offsite links to his own website, his own Tumblr and/or amazon.com. As always, a writer is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because his own self-published web presence or an online bookstore verifies that he exists; he must be the subject of reliable source coverage in media, which verifies that he passes WP:AUTHOR for something, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WEak delete -- I failed to verify that he was a senior lecturer at Hertfordshire University, though mentioned on their website. Currently this is a BLP whose only source is the subject personal webpage, making it potentially WP:OR. If he was a senior lecturer, he might possibly meet WP:ACADEMIC, but I am dubious. It might be userified, but I cannot see to whom. Unless improved, I think it must be deleted as an unverified BLP. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per WP:SNOWBALL (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald (programming language)[edit]

Emerald (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable programming language. The only source is a paper by the creators themselves and the external links are its own website and download pages. GSMR (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think we should keep these articles, as they provide some details regarding the evolution of process based concurrent programming languages, and how they relate to modern programming paradigm. The 80's was a busy time in this area. scope_creep (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The topic is probably notable as explained above by Scope_Creep, but it definitely needs more sources. Find more sources on Emerald, and then we can discuss it in a new light. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnotable language per WP:Notability. Porphyro (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that the article is part of a wider context that can make it quite interesting, although the current version of it does little to drive that point home. Better to keep the stub and hope. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 12:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Searching for "Emerald programming language" (in quotes) on Google Books and Google Scholar finds quite a few hits, many of them appear high quality (journals, conference proceedings, etc.) The designers of this language published peer review papers some of which have been frequently cited. The kind of serious academic research that Wikipedia should keep. SJK (talk) 06:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KaisaL (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Kielty[edit]

Gary Kielty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Child actor in TV commercials who has also appeared in minor roles in a handful of TV series. Accordingly, there is no sign that he passes the notability criteria for biographies or that he has generated any sort of in-depth third party coverage that would meet WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: as non-notable former child actor. Wikipedia is not a repository for every actor with credits on IMDb. Quis separabit? 20:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Luke 6. No objection to it being spun out into its own article if this is ever expanded, but at this point consensus seems to be delete/redirect because of the lack of content. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luke 6:46[edit]

Luke 6:46 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This verse probably does not pass the GNG on it's own. There's probably nothing worth merging, but I would not be opposed to redirecting to Luke 6 instead of outright deletion. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under GNG.
I always find it hard to believe how much has been written about every particle of the Bible, but in this case it's more than GNG demands. FourViolas (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't think we should generally have articles on individual verses - only especially significant ones (WP:NOTCOMMENTARY). Here we have a highly notable phrase ("Lord, Lord") more usually discussed in terms of the parallel verse in Matthew 7:21. StAnselm (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete -- I am unsure what to do with this, but plain deletion is not the right option. One answer might be to merge with the parallel verse in Matthew (where the article would need to be renamed. On the other hand if there is as such commentary as FourViolas suggests, it might be kept. However, for that a substantive article based on the works cited from GBooks and elsewhere needs to be provided. Merely quoting it does not make an encyclopaedic article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Individual Bible verses really don't need their own articles. If there's significant discussion around the verse, perhaps an article about the subject it tackles and/or mention in an article related to the topic of the verse would be warranted. TheDracologist (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Luke 6 leaving a redirect. As can be seen from the redirects at Category:Gospel of Luke verses there are verse sections in the chapter articles. If the section grows larger, it can have its own article. See Luke 22:43–44. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unless it is notable enough to merit good secondary sources of commentary we could then expand on, this would always remain nothing more than a citation and a stub. PaleoNeonate (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but if and only if somebody actually adds the potential sources to the article. Otherwise, merge. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a mirror for the Holy Bible. Ajf773 (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Luke 6. I think it is acceptable to have an article on an individual Bible verse if it has some solid content to it, e.g. a well-referenced discussion of how that particular verse has been interpreted in various commentaries, later sources, etc. But, this article doesn't have any solid content. (If someone writes some solid content on this verse, and it becomes too much for the Luke 6 article, in that case it could legitimately be spun back out into an independent article, but not before then.) SJK (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Luke 6. The verse is presented here without much context which isn't of value to the reader. Expanding on the particulars of this verse in Luke 6 with the sources identified above would probably be a good idea though. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bishonen | talk 21:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 8-Week Cholesterol Cure[edit]

The 8-Week Cholesterol Cure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book Alexbrn (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We can't use this as a RS, but this says that the book stayed on the NYT Bestseller List for 115 weeks, so there is most likely sourcing out there - it's just probably buried somewhere behind paywalls since the book is old as snot. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should pass NBOOK now. It's been republished many times and I'm finding evidence that there are sources out there, they're just not on the Internet for whatever reason. It also seems to be frequently cited in various academic works from what I can see, like this. There might be merit in creating one article for the author and merging this information in there, as content that I can find about the books is as much about him as it is about the books themselves. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  08:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Brown (journalist)[edit]

Penelope Brown (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A relatively common name, so research is tedious, but can find no in-depth coverage to show this journalist passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 17:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I isolated serches with and without the middle initial, connected with her stated education and professional experience, and was unable to find anything in-depth. I did locate a LinkedIn profile which verifies much of the information on the page, but we cannot use LinkedIn for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Though it started as disambiguation page, I’d like to argue for keeping the journalist’s page. She’s notable because her experiences have led the way for female editors covering fields that have not been traditionally well represented by women: sports writing, traffic news of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and manufacturing technology. Coverage of her editorial contributions will improve the content on Wikipedia of journalism and communication beyond just broadcast news personalities. LingLass (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would agree that this would be significant, but we need sources that state such. I was unable to find anything that talks about her work. Can you maybe provide some sources to look at?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot find sources showing significance. Tried a range of keywords; came up empty.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is plagued with sources trying to prove that Brown was exceptional based on broad studies of the gender makeup of certain parts of the journalism profession. What we need is reliable sources that mention Brown as their actual subject, and these are lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Supreme United States Championship[edit]

NWA Supreme United States Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable title for a non-notable promotion. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I believe your opinion of this being a non-notable title for a non-notable promotion is just that, an opinion. NWA Supreme is a part of the National Wrestling Alliance. While the NWA may not be the huge sanctioning body it once was, it is still part of the history of wrestling, dating back over 50 years. NWA Supreme is an affiliate of this group and has wrestlers who have wrestled for the WWE and other promotions. This championship has been around since early 2016 and has been defended in multiple NWA territories. I respectfully ask that this page not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonecohen6 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a part of the National Wrestling Alliance, as mentioned above. For all the reasons already mentioned by Jasonecohen6, i request that the article is kept. Kostas20142 (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - being a member of the NWA in 2017 does not in anyway impart notability, heck just being a member of the NWA In 1970 or 1948 or 1984 is in itself not an indicator of notability and that was from a period of time where the NWA actually meant something. I cannot find any real coverage of this championship in general and nothing in anything resembling a reliable source.  MPJ-DK  10:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MPJ-DK, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.LM2000 (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NWA Supreme doesn't meet WP:GNG, so its title definitely doesn't. If this gets deleted, there is also NWA Supreme Television Championship and NWA Supreme Heavyweight Championship to also look at. Nikki♥311 01:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be an attempt to completely destroy the reputation of a professional wrestling organization by people with a vendetta, not a true attempt at making sure Wikipedia articles meet certain standards. The NWA is the oldest sanctioning body in professional wrestling. NWA Supreme is an integral part of the National Wrestling Alliance. I do not feel it is fair to delete any of these articles. Wikipedia is not supposed to be for opinions, only facts. These articles state nothing but facts and your arguments to delete are all based on opinion. By your definition, only the WWE should be notable because they are the most well known brand of professional wrestling. That is like saying McDonald's should be the only fast food article allowed on Wikipedia. Again, I ask that these pages not be removed. User:Jasonecohen6 —Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No duplicates please. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith when discussing this deletion. This is not at all "[destroying] the reputation...by people with a vendetta." This is simply a non-notable title. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, nor is it proven in the article with a Facebook page and a primary source. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Jasonecohen6 instead of voting "keep" repeatedly or accusing people of evil.plots why don't you put your efforts towards something that could actually save the article? For it not to be deleted you should provide as many Reliable sources from third party sites, magazines or books? If you can prove that "significant coverage" exists in those it would probably be kept. Saying "Don't be a hater" does not help in any way, so please make a positive contribution instead.  MPJ-DK  17:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:MPJ-DK, for a site that prides itself on being reliable, you quoted me as saying "don't be a hater" yet I never said those words. I was only implying that your opinion of notable is just an opinion. I think you need to check with reliable sources as to what I said. User:Jasonecohen6
    • Ouch you totally got me there, now I'll totally want to keep this against all established guidelines. I guess I should have stated that you assumed bad faith in us by stating that we were "destroy the reputation of a professional wrestling organization by people with a vendetta", but then again you're not a realiable source so I decided to paraphrase and you decided to show that any serious conversation is over.  MPJ-DK  22:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KaisaL (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EWP Intercontinental Championship[edit]

EWP Intercontinental Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a wrestling championship in a minor independent promotion created by a now-banned sockpuppet. All sources appear to be bare database results listings and WP:BEFORE does not disclose WP:RS for this title. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find no notable, significant coverage. Hits on the database help source facts, but does not establish notability - only existence.  MPJ-DK  01:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ribarovski[edit]

Daniel Ribarovski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable author. Google finds only 13 hits for his name, and 4 for the book with his surname. No source for claim being an "approved source" and none found on google. noq (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete writer whose book does not seem to have gotten enough notice to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All the media coverage of him seems to be as a 'local boy who did good'. He seems to have broadly become a private citizen, and is not wiki-notable in his present occupation. According to NLA Trove his book isn't held very widely, most holdings are legal deposit libraries. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, getting a book published is an achievement, but in this case it seems to be one of the many published works that didn't attract wide notice. Being held in the NLA collection is not an indicator of notability; as every book published in Australia must be sent there through legal deposit. Best of luck to him if he continues to write, but the sources aren't there right now to write a full, accurate, and NPOV biography of him. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hsu Nai-lin[edit]

Hsu Nai-lin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article with no sources. Prod removed. Insufficient sources to satisfy BLP process. IMDB is an invalid source as it is user generated, as is mydramalist. scope_creep (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: which policy or guidelines is "Insufficient sources to satisfy BLP process" based on? Are you aware of WP:NEXIST? Did you do any WP:BEFORE? What is your take on the hundreds of news articles covering the subject in the Chinese media? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a simple Google news search in Chinese provides ample evidence the subject passes WP:GNG. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Please put the references in. scope_creep (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also the much larger Chinese wiki article, which states he's won two Golden Bell Awards as top host -- apparently the country's highest TV honour. I believe he meets WP:ANYBIO, in that case. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Biwom. The following guidelines define the lifecycle of a BLP article Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people as well as WP:AFD. At the end of day, when I review a BLP article, I expect it to have some sources. I looked for sources for 20 minutes, but all I saw, blogs, YouTube and other social media sites. BLPProd define the assertion that if you remove the Prod from an article, then a valid reference must be added. Please add the reference as per guidelines. scope_creep (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note that the Chinese language article on the 41st Golden Bell Award, which he is stated to have won, seems to make no mention of him, as best as I can see. Change to neutral. Perhaps Taiwanese editors can shed some light. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he (徐乃麟) is mentioned in zh:第41屆金鐘獎 as the winner of an award. He was even listed in our own Best Host in a Variety Programme article, except the spelling didn't match. I have anyway added a sentence about these two awards in his English article with a couple of sources. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close Significant work has been done to the article by the originating author to add verifiable sources, which satisfies BLP guidelines. scope_creep (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 03:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Dhaka RAB Camp Sucide Bombing Attack[edit]

2017 Dhaka RAB Camp Sucide Bombing Attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:109PAPERS. An unfortunate event, but the only coverage so far is routine coverage and it's not clear that this event has long-term notability. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Event seems to clearly fall under WP: NOTNEWS. Nothing to differentiate this from the many suicide bombings that happen every year, either in the event itself or the sources covering it.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Suicide attacks are rare in Bangladesh, and one on security forces is even rarer still. Sources are widely available, a cursory google search shows many sources available.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep International, in-depth coverage of suicide bombing attack on security forces. Nothing routine about it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  08:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julieum 4 perum[edit]

Julieum 4 perum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film, sources are only from database and user-generated websites, no coverage from independent secondary sources, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 11:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - recreate if it receives attention after release. Editor 2050 (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bishonen | talk 21:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raom Roy[edit]

Raom Roy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician fails to pass WP:MUSICBIO and general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KaisaL (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Voth[edit]

Brad Voth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a non-notable figure in hockey.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Does not meet seem to meet NHOCKEY although this states that he was "Captain for the South team for the 'All-Star Spectacular,'" which is not necessarily the same as a First Team All-Star per criterion #4 but not sure if the EIHL has the equivalent of such an honor. But he seems to have attracted a good amount of attention and coverage at Cardiff. This article is ostensibly about a particular incident Voth was involved in but also goes into significant detail about Voth himself. The BBC saw fit to give a short article about the retirement of his number. There is other coverage from WalesOnline such as this and this. The suspension he received in 2011 got some coverage in various British sources, albeit not really coverage of Voth himself. But he seems to have attracted enough attention beyond the typical player in a league that we assess in WP:NHOCKEY/LA as a lower level league such that keeping seems appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  08:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Cofounder[edit]

The Cofounder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Launched last year. Sourced to blogs and a press releases. Doesn't appear to be notable. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apart from some coverage about its launch in late 2016, there is no significant coverage by independent media. This is also a recent magazine, so I don't see how it passes WP:NME. — Stringy Acid (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  08:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Grayson[edit]

Diane Grayson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as an insufficiently notable actress. Quis separabit? 02:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it is long past time that we deleted all articles referenced only to IMDb. That is declared a non-reliable source for purposes of notability. Wikipedia does not aim to be a directory of every person ever appearing in film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 03:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  08:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nurgaliev's law[edit]

Nurgaliev's law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neither new not notable. A duplication/ wrong attribution of logistic model Igny (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - possible self-promotion? Although a number of editors have made changes to this article since 2006, I can find almost nothing on it outside of wikipedia links. Delete as NN. Porphyro (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ken J Bradley[edit]

Ken J Bradley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article's sources are unreliable, and not a single result in a Google News search. Note to article creator: I can help you get used to Wikipedia if you want. J947 19:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom, all sources given are primary, and lack of available reliable sources means it fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Quasar G t - c 22:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Channing Williams[edit]

David Channing Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article needs more references and more content to demonstrate the notability of David Channing Williams. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - notability is not inherited just because he was the CEO of a big company. There is a lack of available reliable sources on the subject, except for a few books which mention him briefly. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Quasar G t - c 22:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - note that had he been the CEO of Vodafone itself, we probably should've taken a second and third look. But he was appointed as the head of Vodafone-UK - just the (large) UK branch. I tried to look for more sources - didn't find much beyond an appointment as a director in a different company in 2001.Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KaisaL (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Hakkim[edit]

Mohamed Hakkim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article tells more about the subject's father than it tells about the subject himself. It does not demonstrate the notability of Dr. Mohamed Hakkim. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) –CaroleHenson (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Adolf Persson[edit]

Peter Adolf Persson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not finding sufficient sources to establish notability for WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. –CaroleHenson (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Swedish Wikipedia has a more substantial article with references here. We should expand by translating that article. Most, if not all available sources appear to be in Swedish. He is in the collections of the National Museum in Stockholm and a few others, satisfying WP:ARTIST. He is listed in Svenska konstnärer, Biografisk handbok (Swedish artists, biographical handbook) and Svenskt konstnärslexikon (Swedish artists dictionary) which should make this pass WP:GNG. freshacconci (✉) 19:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. The article was already sufficiently referenced to demonstrate notability at the time of nomination. It could be improved, but that is true for many other articles. --Hegvald (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KaisaL (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donnegy Fer[edit]

Donnegy Fer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I know almost nothing about football but this fails WP:NFOOTY as he was an unused substitute and hasn't actually played as far as I can find. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not currently meet out notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He has not played for Suriname or in a fully pro league, and has not received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable footballer.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nitin Bhajiyawala[edit]

Nitin Bhajiyawala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article needs more information and more references to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Eddie Blick (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Surat is a large enough city that he could clear WP:NPOL #2 if the article were reliably sourced over WP:GNG, but this is referenced entirely to primary sources (his political party's website, the website of the city government) — and it's not an internationally recognized global city, which is the status it would take to grant him a presumption of notability in the absence of better sourcing than this. So no, this as written isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete party heads at the city level are almost never notable, no sources to show an exception to this rule here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subrat Das[edit]

Subrat Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neither the article itself nor its two references demonstrate that the subject is notable. Eddie Blick (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) –CaroleHenson (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laia Martínez i López[edit]

Laia Martínez i López (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sufficient sources to establish WP:GNG per news and nothing at Google custom search –CaroleHenson (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are the. most. incredibly. poor. reasons to nominate for deletion; akin to saying "I'm really not much good at searching for Catalan sources using google, so we might as leap straight to an unfounded conclusion and delete this piece of work". A simple google search brings back lots of hits. I don't read Catalan nor Spanish, but the URLs & general tone of what I'm seeing suggests she passes GNG in spades. I'm sorry, but really, this nomination is nonsense on stilts. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tagishsimon, taking the quotes off the search and searching the entire internet vs. focusing on news, books, other secondary sources isn't necessarily meaningful. For instance, when I search my name without quotes I get many more times the hits than this subject. It would be helpful to state the reasons why she "passes GNG in spades" with specifics.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson, a question: do you speak Spanish/Catalan?198.58.162.200 (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson, the "Google Custom search " URL above, aka using a boolean to search in Google, is defective. When i click your link, zero results. When I paste the same boolean phrase into my own browser search, I get zoodles of hits. I think this may be the cause of this AFD and the other two AfDs that you withdrew today. 198.58.162.200 (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not withdraw the other nomination because of search results differences. For many articles that I've reviewed today I have found lots of cse, news, HIghBeam, newspaper, JSTOR, scholar, etc. hits... and yes I agree that it's a subset of what's found from a general internet search from the first link. So far, I don't see anything in the comments here - or in the article that causes me to think I should withdraw this nomination, so let's ride it out a bit more. If someone wanted to expand the article with content that proves her notability - or explains how her notability is met, that would be great and helpful!–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson, I'm tryoing to pooint out to you that the Google Custom search link you provide in the nomination is invalid for the purposes of Afd. Google Custom search is not for general web searches, it's for searching a single domain like example.com. If you put the same terms you used into plain old Google, you get voluminous hits.198.58.162.200 (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't misunderstand you. "Plain old Google" brings a lot of non-reliable sources. As I said earlier, if I search on my name in plain old Google, I get more hits than on her name, but that doesn't mean I should have a Wikipedia article. Here are the search hits using English, català, español:
- If we're only going by search hits, is this enough to be "significant coverage" under WP:GNG? If the result of the discussion is to keep, that is perfectly fine with me.
- Regarding Google custom search, "Anna Aguilar-Amat" gets 120 hits on Google custom search (which cleans out a lot of unreliable sources and sounds like a good number to me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Carole, I'm wondering why you're expecting to find hits on a Catalan musician and writer on things like JSTOR? Of course a scholar like Anna Aguilar-Amat is going to be covered more thoroughly in certain sources, just look at what they're actually notable for. For musicians especially you should be looking at the relevant areas of WP:NMUSIC, not running your own personal criteria of having hits on your specific custom search on a language you apparently don't speak. KaisaL (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was replying to a comment, perhaps a mistake.
It would be so refreshing and helpful if someone would address in what ways she's notable.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough, it's just an observation that your own criteria and search system is perhaps more relevant in certain areas than others. Entertainment isn't covered so thoroughly in books and scholarly sources. KaisaL (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi everyone, I am participating in a and one of the proposals to create an article is this,Laia Martínez i López. I know the article it´s short but I improved the references. I think the article It´s relevant because this person it´s know in Spain and other counties of the EE UU, and it´s important make known the figure of women in literature. Hope you understand Santamarcanda (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome! Personally I agree.198.58.162.200 (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourcing in other languages appears to confer notability, on the face of it.198.58.162.200 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Adequate sourcing in other languages, needs work, but meets GNG. Montanabw(talk) 02:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously! Roseohioresident (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I see the keep votes - and I get that there might be sources or criteria that I missed that establishes her notability. If one person can answer the question: What makes her notable? I will withdraw this Afd. See: this, this, or this.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi CaroleHenson! To answer your question I want to cite what wrote Santamarcanda above: "I think the article It´s relevant because this person it´s know in Spain and other counties of the EE UU, and it´s important make known the figure of women in literature". I understand this isn't the best argument, for that, it isn't my main argument. I am going to show you reference and write comments for each one, because I think that the best way to show her notability is with sources:
  • She is one of the poets used by the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (Open University of Catalonia) to promote the Day of the Catalan poetry. You can check it here and here ―this is a fragment of the previous document to check only Laia biography―.
  • She also has wrote in the journal Caràcters, La dificultat de donar les gràcies, but I don't find the article in open access.
  • In the bibliographic portal of the National Library of Spain you can check its item. She has work in several works and she has four books.
I know that it's very complicated to understand that this women has notability because she is a poet present in the Catalan poetry scene. That it's shown with the news, because she is active in different festivals and works. I understand that maybe it's very soon to publish something about her, but I think that her page in Wikipedia is important because it reflect the Catalan poetry scene. I am going to search more about her to improve its article. Regards, Ivanhercaz (Talk) 19:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks Ivanhercaz!–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boo Laura Storm Jackson[edit]

Boo Laura Storm Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. She's credited with one role ("Imagine me and You") and coverage does not exceed "passing mentions". DePRODBLP'd, since one source (though not independent) was mentioned. Kleuske (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Article possible violates WP:BIO. The article is also poorly written and has no context whatsoever. Seems like blatant advertisement Yashovardhan (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NACTOR. She's had one film role at the age of 9. The Nottingham New Theatre where most of her work is credited is a small student-run operation at her university. She may eventually be notable, but not yet. Neiltonks (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete she comes no where close to meeting the notability guidelines for acting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Kathpalia[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rajeev Kathpalia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR: No significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. A Google search found only this source which was published back in 2009, no new sources and no evidence to support his role in Dhoni: The Untold Story. I'm open to withdraw my nomination if anyone can provide some more independent reliable sources to support notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I concur with GSS's assessment, and have said as much on the creator's talk page. I gave him a warning about autobiographies two days ago [25]. He ignored it, kept on working on Draft:Rajiv Kathpalia. I asked him twice (1, 2) to respond. No response. He has twice removed an autobiography tag from the article (1,2), despite having been told about writing autobiographies before and knows this is a real problem. The editor's pattern of edits have been strictly in support of Rajeev Kathpalia, demonstrating they are a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. While these actions are not themselves reasons for deletion, they help illuminate the situation. As to the article itself, I have also attempted to inform the editor of the same concerns that GSS has raised. I noted this here on March 22, and again today. Outside of the one article from 2009, there is nothing to go on here. Thus, this is a failure of WP:GNG. Despite efforts, I can not verify through reliable sources that there was even a character of the name "Mihir" in the one movie this actor supposedly acted in. No such character is shown on our article here, nor on the imdb cast listing for this movie. So even if he did appear as this character, the character is so minor as to be effectively not worth mentioning. Thus, this is a failure of WP:NACTOR; the actor has had no significant roles of any kind. I believe this person, or a person acting on behalf of him, is attempting to promote themselves and use Wikipedia to do so. The article is an output of that, and has no basis for acceptability under Wikipedia standards. Like GSS, I'm willing to amend my recommendation if some reliable sources can be found. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I must also concur with the rationale given; after getting the page creator to remove "Official account" from their username, it seems that it is the person promoting themselves. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "keep" opinion is by a WP:SPA.  Sandstein  08:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heart In Diamond[edit]

Heart In Diamond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NORG. The 2 sources that mention the company are Forbes and Huffpost (that mention it in passing); Forbes contributors are notoriously unreliable as most have PR and business consultancy functions as does the author of the article that in fact only mentions this company in passing. Domdeparis (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In regard to WP:NORG. Heart In Diamond is mentioned here amongst others: http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/australians-opting-for-alternative-approaches-in-human-body-disposal/news-story/c2cc6e9d331c704b68441001c93e367d http://elitedaily.com/life/things-to-do-body-death/1819851/ http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/the-bloomfield-diamond-made-using-turf-from-the-ipro-stadium/story-29488198-detail/story.html http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-13/health/sc-health-0213-ashes-disposal-20130213_1_human-ashes-uncle-leo-lifegem

In some of these articles Heart In Diamond is mentioned in the same sentence together with businesses that have an approved Wikipedia page that is WP:NORG , such as: LifeGem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeGem For example, in the Chiga Tribune article: "Among them are LifeGem (lifegem.com), Heart In Diamond (heart-in-diamond.com)...."

In regard to Forbes.com and Huffpost.com as "notoriously unreliable sources" Forbes is cited roughly 12,800 times on Wikipedia which makes this statement highly disputable Huffpost is cited roughly 19,900 times on Wikipedia which makes this statement highly disputable

Verify numbers, this Google search roughly shows how many times Forbes and Huffingtonpost is used as source for an article: https://www.google.com.ar/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=1I7VWP_HA8qnxgTz0IRY&gws_rd=ssl#q=site:https://en.wikipedia.org/+%22Forbes.+Retrieved%22&* https://www.google.com.ar/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=1I7VWP_HA8qnxgTz0IRY&gws_rd=ssl#q=site:https://en.wikipedia.org/+%22Huffington+post.+Retrieved%22&* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpkersbergen123 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reply You might like to read what I wrote again. I said that "Forbes contributors are notoriously unreliable as most have PR and business consultancy functions" what I could have added is "as an independent source for notability". Their jobs are to promote companies and this makes the independence of their articles highly questionable. This essay is interesting Essay. WP:NORG states that notability is not inherited and because a company is mentioned in the same sentence as another notable company does not make it notable by association. All of the sources that you give only mention the company in passing. There is no in-depth coverage which is necessary to pass WP:NORG. Domdeparis (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
Hi ... You might like to read what i wrote again:
Again, i do not agree that the article does not meet WP:NORG, it is not true that the sources just mention the company "in passing", the Forbes article is solely about this company for example. The other articles mention Heart In Diamond too, in WP:NORG it is NOT mentioned that an in-depth article is required, at WP:GNG it says "sources vary in quality and depth of coverage". WP:NRV "Sources of evidence include... reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally". I just gave 6 reliable sources. As you can read, editors are also encouraged to look at the sources not mentioned on the Wikipedia article, which makes the number of mentiones even higher. Even if 1 or 2 do not make the cut for "reliable" there will still be 4 or 5 reliable sources left that mention this company. I think you should also read this from WP:NRV "Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface" As i see it, the speedy deletion proposal is based on WP:A7 i think the "speedy deletion" nomination is completely out of order because according to WP:NORG this is a business "of importance".
Apart from that, with my argument above i dispute that Forbes authors are PR consultants. A writer and a PR consultant are two completely different jobs. About your other point, if you would read my comment then the answer to your comment is there: I did read WP:COI and there's no conflict of interest because i am not connected to Heart In Diamond. I said i am a "consultant". As you perhaps know there are dozens of types of consultants. if you read carefully, you will see that i never said i was a PR consultant, and that (looking at any of the Wikipedia speedy deletion rules), wikipedia does not exclude certain professions by default, unless there's a conflict of interest.
As you can see in the broad spectrum of arguments above, there's no reason at all for speedy deletion: WP:CSD "The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules here". You were the one to review this page the last time too, isn't there a proper system in place that prevents the same people from contesting a the same page over and over again, to promote objectivity?
Perhaps you should also read this WP:FIELD "Thus, improper tagging of an article as a speedy candidate leaves more work for users patrolling the speedy deletion category, and improper deletion by administrators causes poor relations with other users, and often prolongs the situation by forcing a deletion review." and "The policy is quite clear in usage – it is meant to be used in "limited circumstances," (from which this is not one) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpkersbergen123 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based upon the few sources that are out there, and the lack of depth of coverage, I agree that it does not meet notability per WP:ORG.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
A7 only refers to real people, individual animals, organizations, web content, or events. Too often this is applied to other articles. An article doesn't have to prove that the subject is important or significant nor does it have to provide reliable sources; if it makes a credible claim that it might be important or significant, then it is not speedily deletable. It's important to distinguish "importance or significance" from "notability" : A7 does not require that an article indicates that the subject meets a notability guideline, merely suggest that the article could be improved to a state where it does. "Credible" is added because some kid writing an autobiography of himself declaring himself to be the best lover the world has ever seen may be a claim to importance or significance, but it clearly isn't credible. The same kid, however, might be able to make a credible claim saying that he received an award from the president for saving another kid from drowning in a pool. That award may not be enough to save the article, as there may be no evidence of receiving the award from reliable sources, but it is enough to prevent it from being speedily deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpkersbergen123 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The requirements for notability have not been met - passing mentions, PR nonsense and basic confirmation that the company exists is all that I could find. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Again, i know my explanation is a long one, but would serve everyone involved to read it better before replying with an opinion based on facts and wikipedia guidelines rather than opinions.. From WP:NRV "Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface" As i see it, the speedy deletion proposal is based on WP:A7 i think the "speedy deletion" nomination is completely out of order because according to WP:NORG this is a business "of importance". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpkersbergen123 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the second, and final, time - this is not a Speedy Deletion - this is an Article for Deletion discussion. WP:A7 is meaningless here, so there's no need to keep quoting it. Read WP:GNG - that's the page that matters here. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can I also remind you that you should not be stating "keep" in bold letters more than once in a discussion. Your vote will only be counted once. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  08:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Rotaru (harpsichordist)[edit]

Alina Rotaru (harpsichordist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Strike one against this is that it's an autobiography - not automatically disqualifying, of course, but still a red flag. Strike two, which is fatal to the article, is the lack of independent in-depth coverage, or anything suggesting the subject meets WP:NMUSIC. We have a bunch of sale pages ([26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]); some cruft ([33], [34]); [35]); a couple of self-published reviews ([36], [37]) and a pair of puff pieces that appeared in the same newspaper a week apart, largely duplicating their content ([38], [39]). Nothing here really indicates a notable musician, and the general scarcity of attention the subject has garnered in impartial sources means we too should not have an article about her. - Biruitorul Talk 14:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for people to advance their personal brand, but a place to cover people who have actually received indepdent source coverage. We have nothing more than sale sites and PR puff here. The article makes claims about wide recognition for the subject which would require actual indepdent sources to verify.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  08:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TnT (professional wrestling)[edit]

TnT (professional wrestling) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Individuals are notable, but team is not. Precedent for deletion of this sort of team article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelina Love and Winter. Nikki♥311 05:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 05:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 14:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely not enough material to justify its existence. Nickag989talk 18:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Franke[edit]

Kurt Franke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unremarkable Waffen-SS man. Does not meet WP:SOLDIER & significant RS coverage cannot be found: link.

No de.wiki article. Berger is a WP:QS author and is non RS for the purpose of establishing notability; please see this supplementary discussion of Berger & The Face of Courage at RSN permalink. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete -- We have an impressive list of medals, including one only awarded 631 times. That might make him notable, but we need some text from the citation as to what he did before I will accept he is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the facts behind to Knight's Cross award and the Close Combat medal in Gold are presented then it would possibility meet notability; one cannot tell given the barebones presentation currently there. I don't have information to add on this soldier. Kierzek (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 14:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It didn't take much Googling to find another source about him and add it to the article. It's an unpleasant feeling to record his deeds but that's the nature of an encyclopedia. There's enough verifiable detail here to warrant an article about him. Mortee (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the citation added (diff) is to Berger's The Face of Courage which I discussed in this nomination. Being an uncritical, hagiographic account, it falls too far short of WP:RS & WP:NPOV requirements to sustain an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Literature on the SS Death's Head Division like Charles Sydnor's Soldiers of Destruction (Princeton UP, 1977; 1990) or Niels Weise's biography of Theodor Eicke, the division's commander (a PhD., published in German 2013) do not mention a Kurt Franke. Apart from listings in certain directories of certain award and medal recipients, he seems to be mentioned only in Florian Berger's originally self published work on Knight's Cross recipients with Close Combat Clasp. If the bar is not to be set at the lowest imaginable level, that does not qualify as significant coverage. I was able to find one review according to which that work conveys only loose information to the biographical facts, but focuses on a retelling of the fighting, in which the soldier has participated.[40] Indeed, Berger mentions Franke's service as a concentration camp guard only in passing and is not able (or willing?) to name the concentration camp(s) where Franke served. The reviewer, Klaus Schreiber, characterizes the work as hero worship and unfavorably notes that there may still be a market for such publications. (Maybe that explains why Stackpole issued a translation.) Thus Franke does not meet the criteria even of WP:SOLDIER. There are not enough information to include details about Frankes personal life, education and military career. There are only information about the awards he received and Berger's work is not what I would consider a reliable secondary source. --Assayer (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do not need articles based on poorly research works in praise of SS officers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-closure comment: The note below was left on my Talk page (diff); I'm moving it here to keep the discussion in one place. I hope that the admins would let it stay, as it clarifies the "keep" voter's position:
I just wanted to thank you for your note in reply to me on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurt Franke, which I didn't see until after the discussion was closed, hence my replying here rather than there. I should have noticed that you'd mentioned the author's name in your nomination, and shouldn't have been so quick to assume that a (not self-published, non-fiction) book qualified as the kind of source that establishes notability. I voted 'Keep' based on that misunderstanding but I can't say I'm disappointed to see the article go. Mortee (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC).
K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 apparent lack of sources to make any content about this author verifiable mandates deletion, regrettably. The one "keep" opinion makes no argument and must be disregarded.  Sandstein  08:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meng Lee[edit]

Meng Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any evidence this person meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. She's been mentioned in a bunch of books about C++, but as far as I can gather, that's about it. Adam9007 (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: No assertion of importance. Having written a book is hardly important. If for some reason this fails speedy, delete anyway as there is no in-depth coverage. Toddst1 (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep Meng Lee has some well-cited publications according to Google Scholar. I can see a technical report with > 600 citations (which was instrumental in the development of the C++ Standard Template Library), one paper with > 200 citations, and another one with > 100 citations. She developed the original C++ Standard Template Library with Alexander Stepanov, and coauthored the first technical report on the STL, as well as a book published in 2000 that has over 100 citations. It's difficult to judge researchers working in R&Ds of private corporations solely on the basis of their publications since they publish very little (and mostly in the form of internal technical reports). However, in this case, the subject clearly passes WP:GNG. However, she appears to have stopped her research after 1992 or so. She doesn't qualify WP:PROF with just three papers, but she isn't a completely unknown researcher either. — Stringy Acid (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am curious, but how is GNG satisfied. I don't see significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Btw, the citation counts in Google Scholar seems to be inflated. The link at ACM gives much lower numbers. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 14:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but man does this article need expansion and improvement. Montanabw(talk) 02:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Forget notability, we don't even have RS for verifiability. If I go by WP:WHYN, there are literally no independent sources about the subject. While I can see a contribution to the C++ template library, there is nothing else. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This profile shows only 3 papers (between 1990-1992), where the subject is never the first author. In addition, the citation counts are quite low (86, 36, 1) for papers published in 1990-1992. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sadly. I want to keep articles on female computer scientists who have made a significant contribution, which is why I've held off contributing to this AfD for so long, but we have so little sourcing even for her signature work on the STL that I don't think we can support an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Funk[edit]

Lori Funk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While there are lots of hits for folks with this name, can't find any substantive coverage for this particular person. Fails WP:GNG, and obviously doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No significant roles and no coverage. Fails WP:ENT. SL93 (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough significant roles to pass notability guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:Deb per A7. Burning Pillar (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Saswat saubhagya rout[edit]

Saswat saubhagya rout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, non-notable, no content except a date of birth. lovkal (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete WP:A7 - I've tagged the article. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Deleted as it unquestionably meets the criteria. Deb (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:Jimfbleak under WP:G11. Burning Pillar (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Novotel Goa Resort & Spa, Goa[edit]

Novotel Goa Resort & Spa, Goa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant promotion/advertising lovkal (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete WP:G11 Tagged the article. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for unambiguous advertising. Creator has a history of creating non-encyclopedic articles and this is yet another example. Ajf773 (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Connie Willis. There seems to be consensus that a stand-alone article is not warranted, hence I am redirecting this to the article on the author. If a bibliography article is created, it can be retargetted there. Any content worth merging (either to a bibliography or to the biography) is still available in the article history. Randykitty (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Winds of Marble Arch and Other Stories: A Connie Willis Compendium[edit]

The Winds of Marble Arch and Other Stories: A Connie Willis Compendium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Kinda hard to do Before on a compendium of short stories, but I can't see a good reason why this one is notable. I can't find any reviews or mentions or anything much beyond booksellers JMWt (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Seconding original notions. bojo | talk 13:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Connie Willis bibliography: LadyofShalott, I think that is a solid suggestion. Information about this book seems to be scant at best, but it seems like a good idea to merge the content into a new article. bojo | talk 21:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I found no coverage. Not even one single review. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or merge: Still non-notable, but I'm not against a merge. SL93 (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there is at least one review, a starred one at that, and I have added it to the article. Also, the title story was the winner of the 2000 Hugo Award for Best Novella. Ultimately, I don't think there is enough for this book itself to have a stand-alone article. I think it and the Connie Willis article (which seems a bit of a mess) would be better off if this content were merged into a new Connie Willis bibliography article. LadyofShalott 03:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 04:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well it deserves a mention on the biography page, perhaps, if the story won a prize. But I'd hesitate to call that a merge, I can't see that there is anything to be gained from having the TOC and other random details (although I note that you've edited these off now). I still it's a delete with a mention of the winning story on the biography page not the compendium of other stories. JMWt (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KaisaL (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N P Suhaid[edit]

N P Suhaid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR: Does not appear to be a notable person. A Google search for "N P Suhaid" or "Kukku" found nothing that establishes notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrate Fairfax![edit]

Celebrate Fairfax! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could only find insignificant local coverage. Fails WP:N. It was also created by a user with the same username as this article. SL93 (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've also looked for sources and not found anything substantial that doesn't seem promotional. Mortee (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - promotional article which does not satisfy WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 03:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KaisaL (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3D prostate-targeted treatment[edit]

3D prostate-targeted treatment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a marketing name for a particular technique that has been the subject of a PR blitz recently (e.g. [41]). In the absence of notability of this particular form of treatment, it's just advertising a particular doctor's practice. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It's never a good sign when you have the word "natural" twice in the first sentence of an article...or...really the first sentence of anything for that matter. But besides that, not much out there besides press releases, and literally nothing on g.scholar. Fringe COI promotionalism. Nuke on sight. TimothyJosephWood 15:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:MEDRS. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KaisaL (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Mercy (professional wrestling)[edit]

No Mercy (professional wrestling) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a wrestling stable in a minor independent promotion created by a now-banned sockpuppet. All sources appear to be wrestling blogs and WP:BEFORE does not disclose WP:RS for this grouping. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 02:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 08:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tourism in Gujarat. That is clearly the consensus, but I am also personally taking the decision to delete the history, as it is purely promotional, and there is no justification for keeping it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Ahmedabad[edit]

Tourism in Ahmedabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTRAVEL. Obvious tourist brochure content. Wikipedia is not the Lonely Planet. Ajf773 (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly not an encyclopaedia article Spiderone 12:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tourism in Gujarat. This could be cleaned up and properly sourced like many other tourism in city articles, but redirect for now.Charles (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is relisted to gain a clearer consensus on whether the close should be a delete or a redirect, as those are the two current options. Other opinions are welcome as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 08:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as the nominator - this AfD has been relisted enough times now. I give preference to redirect as per User:Charlesdrakew. If the article is ever recreated it can also be nominated again in another AfD should the content continue to be non-compliant. Ajf773 (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KaisaL (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Brabazon[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    Francis Brabazon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Not notable, badly refed like this deleted page [42] SaintAviator lets talk 03:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. SaintAviator lets talk 23:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete fails WP:AUTHOR. writing a lot of non notable books doesn't add to notability. no major awards for himself or his books. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Adding to the above book (reviewed in Journal for the Academic Study of Religion, Vol 18, No 1 (2005)[44]) (probobly started life as a phd thesis [45]). ABC's Radio National broadcast a show about him [46]. National Library of Australia has a "book" of Biographical cuttings on Francis Brabazon, containing one or more cuttings from newspapers or journals [47]. State Library Victoria has similar [48]. There is another book about him, The water carrier : a mosaic of the poet, Francis Brabazon by Robert Rouse [49]. AustLit shows 3 works about him and 10 about his work [50]. Includes Francis Brabazon : A New Measure in Modern Australian Poetry Ross Keating , 1996 criticism — Appears in: Religion, Literature and the Arts : Conference Proceedings [1996]; (p. 185-193). Other articles appear in publications such as Australien zwischen Europa und Asien, 1993, The Bulletin, 1964, Australian Book Review, 1963, Quadrant, 1958, Meanjin, 1957 and 1958, The Sydney Morning Herald, 1957 and Walkabout, 1954. Also an article in Sydney Studies in Religion [51]. Enough coverage for notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Robert Rouse was a Baba follower. [52] His book was self published by funds from Bill Le Page, by deesh Books, now gone as a publisher. Le Pages page was deleted last week. He is also a Baba follower [53] as is Ross Keating who is Le pages son in law [54]. Look for this, 'Jenny ( married Ross Keating )' here [55] All Brabazons books are published by Baba Followers i.e Meher Baba Foundation Australia, Sheriar Press, Beacon Hill Publishing. Also note, there are No references in this article, none whatsoever. The reading list are all Baba followers. The Phd the above poster mentions early in the first 2 links is none other than Ross Keating. Who also does the Radio show in the next link. So all of these three supporting points are one man, Keating, pushing his self published book. The next point the newspaper cuttings includes Brabazons obituary. Hardly notable, Ancestry.com is packed with that info about just about everyone from that time. The next point was Rouse, covered above. The last supporting point by the above poster is our main man, Keating, again, who else. These supporting points are almost all Ross Keating. Duffbeerforme, did you not see that? SaintAviator lets talk 20:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "These supporting points are almost all Ross Keating." Well the ones you addressed are. How about the others that you skipped. They form the majority of sources. Australien zwischen Europa und Asien, 1993, The Bulletin, 1964, Australian Book Review, 1963, Quadrant, 1958, Meanjin, 1957 and 1958, The Sydney Morning Herald, 1957 and Walkabout, 1954. No by Keating.
    ABC source is published by ABC, a major reputable publisher.
    Yes the Bill Le Page page was bad and should have been deleted but this one is not about him.
    "The next point the newspaper cuttings includes Brabazons obituary." Does it? What else does it contain? Obits are common but the NLA does not collect all obits in a "book" dedicated to random individuals. They are not indiscriminate.
    Keatings books self published? Could be, does not seem to be a regular publisher. Big point against it. In it's favour, Keating is not just a random follower, he is "is a senior lecturer in the School of Education at the Australian Catholic University." and the book has been independently reviewed. Might not be independent enough for GNG but Brabazon passes without it.
    "Also note, there are No references in this article, none whatsoever." At the moment no, but over the years it has had. But more important sources exist and are verifiable. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A comment on content. I say he passes gng on the strength of those sources from AustLit. Those sources are mostly reviews of his books of poetry. They are not about his devotion to Baba The relative weight given to what is covered needs to reflect the sourcing. Outside of Baba devotion sources there is reviews of his poetry so Wikipedia should reflect that poetry. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The others I skipped were not linked / refed. They dont count. Sadly Im not going to run around finding your links. Keating is self published. Re no refs, Wikipedia protocol is clear, not refs, delete. Hes not notable enough. Any refs that exist to provide the meat of the article are devotional self published. It looks like the picture is dodgy too, [56] SaintAviator lets talk 21:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Have a read of WP:OFFLINE. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 08:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete. It does seem that the subject has been promoted by some people with family (?) COI, but their motivations don't matter that much. Regardless her reasons, Ross Keating managed to publish several academic works about the subject. That said, the sources are few, and kind of stretched. The point to keep in mind is that not all poets are notable, and this bio does seem to fail WP:CREATIVE. No awards, no coverage except one (?) dedicated fan-scholar or so. I am afraid he is not an encyclopedic material, not until more scholars, journalists or such become interested in him and publish a bit more about him. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Piotrus. You state that beyond Keating there is no coverage. What about the reviews of Brabazons work that were published in Australien zwischen Europa und Asien, 1993, The Bulletin, 1964, Australian Book Review, 1963, Quadrant, 1958, Meanjin, 1957 and 1958, The Sydney Morning Herald, 1957 and Walkabout, 1954. None of those are by Keating. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus:. They were found on AustLit. If logged in you get a Biography here and a list of Works About Their Works here. This bapge has the works titles, Author, brief not on what it is and where it appears (with Publication, Date, volume details, pages).
    eg. Untitled Charles Higham , 1957 review
    — Appears in: The Sydney Morning Herald , 26 January 1957; (p. 12)
    — Review of The Hexagon Hal Porter 1956 selected work poetry ; Seven Stars to Morning Francis Brabazon 1956 selected work poetry
    I don't know how much should be copied from AustLit given that is a subscription service.
    Contents are mostly reviews of his books, Proletarians-Transition * 2, The East-West Gathering * 2, Cantos of Wandering * 2, Seven Stars to Morning * 2. Others are more general "criticism".
    Also could you consider the Biographical cuttings on him available in at least two major libraries. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Duffbeerforme: Since unfortunately I cannot log in, I cannot express my opinion on those sources beyond "they are promising". Regarding reproduction, well, I stand by "knowledge should be free", and add that I have seen on a number of occasion people providing screenshots of otherwise locked content here (of course, we cannot upload them to wiki servers, but there's a ton of free hosts out there). If you have qualms about that, that's fine, but being able to show such screenshots could strengthen the keep side's argument significantly. Seeing is believing, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Checking Poet lists Hes not listed as a famous Australian poet here [57] or here [58] or here [59]. Quite an extensive list. SaintAviator lets talk 03:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Not notable. Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • For those that want to ignore offline sourcing perhaps have a look at Rumi - Past and Present, East and West, by Franklin D. Lewis (Oneworld Publications) [60] and Meanjin, Volume 17, Issue 72 [61] [62] (1958, see above. "Cantos of Wandering is one of the most curious books of pseudo-poetry ever published in Australia.") and another Meanjin [63]. And what may convince everyone of notability, the New Oxford Book of Australian Verse from Oxford University Press includes him [64]. (other minor snippetts [65] [66] [67]). duffbeerforme (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply The link above for the 'New Oxford Book of Australian Verse' lists his name on this article being discussed for deletion. A self fulfilling loop. A Google search of the title 'Rumi - Past and Present, East and West' plus Brabazon gets 444,000 hits with no Brabazon mentioned. So he has never been discussed online in relation to this book. Cantos of wandering was published by Beacon Hill Press owned by Ross Keatings father in law, Bill Le Page. So self published. Your points in support are going round in circles, revolving around the Keating / Le Page axis of fan boy self publishing. His real notability is association with Meher Baba. The question is, is that enough? And the Elephant in the room is his article has No references, none at all. Why are we even discussing this? SaintAviator lets talk 21:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your underhanded attempts to ignore or downplay provided evidence is getting worse.
    "The link above for the 'New Oxford Book of Australian Verse' lists his name on this article being discussed for deletion. A self fulfilling loop." Nope, just another red herring from you. The link above [68] has nothing to do with Wikipedia. That book was published in 1986, well before Wikipedia started.
    You claim to have run a google search and got "no Brabazon mentioned". (You looked through all 44,000 claimed hits did you?) Let's see what a real search gets.
    Let's try as you write it above. 'Rumi - Past and Present, East and West' Brabazon [69] gets 7,300 results, the 3rd one (google books) includes Brabazon. 7 of the first 10 do but some are false hits due to the lack of quote marks.
    Let's try with quote marks "Rumi - Past and Present, East and West" Brabazon [70] gets 7 results, the first one (google books) clearly includes Brabazon.
    But why even try a google search? I've already provided the relevant link.
    "So he has never been discussed online in relation to this book." How is that relevent? Another red herring from you. He was discussed in the book.
    Cantos of Wandering "self published." How is that relevent? Another red herring from you. Self published books can get reviewed too.
    None of the points I just made above revolve around Keating or Le Page so just another red herring from you.
    "His real notability is association with Meher Baba." Says who? Another red herring from you. His real notability is from reviews and critisisms of his work.
    "And the Elephant in the room is his article has No references, none at all." Another red herring from you. This afd is about the notability of Brabazon, not about the current state of the article. Why does it have no "references" at the moment? here it has 23 listed (but many are repeats). Someone must of removed them. Are the sources available, clearly yes and thats the relevant thing. Are there any sources in the article, yes, the publications and further reading are all sources even if they don't help with notability.
    "Why are we even discussing this?" Because you choose not to listen.
    Your strawman is looking very feeble. And you are still ignoring the offline sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the Elephant Im talking about. [71] Offline sources are OK BTW, I have used them too, but as stated above they need to be presented here properly, if you do it would trump the Google issue SaintAviator lets talk 21:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    And now I've added a reference to the article so your imaginary elephant has left the room. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You're starting to be uncivil, here, 'Your underhanded attempts' and directly above, dont. SaintAviator lets talk 21:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't like that picture, how about this one (he is bottom right)? duffbeerforme (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not a matter of like its about copyright. Again youre taking it to the personal. The editor who posted that picture was contacted about a copyright query and since then has commented above with a 'Delete' re the article. BTW as it happens I dont like that new picture. SaintAviator lets talk 21:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sidney Nolan: A Life [72] has a little bit more. More snippetts in Modern Love: The Lives of John and Sunday Reed [73] duffbeerforme (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Snippett. def. A bit, scrap, or morsel. Its four deletes to one keep. Hes just not notable enough. I put him on this page [74] where there are 4 other Meher Baba affiliated pages you, Duffbeerforme, nominated for deletion, which I support BTW. Brabazon was a dedicated Meher Baba follower. SaintAviator lets talk 23:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Luckily afds are not head counts. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 08:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. To clarify, Duffbeerforme nominated some articles for deletion associated with Meher Baba like 69 Darshan, Jai Baba, Win Coates, Meher Babas Flag. They went. Also Bill Le Page was nominated and deleted. I went thru these articles and they were indeed weak in notability and references. So in the interests of maintaining what is best in this template [75] I supported this move. They can always make a comeback with better references. I put some templates on some other articles in this template, like Kitty Davy. Meredith Starr to encourage the creators and perhaps other editors to lift the standard of the editing. This article in question could stay with some work, but its current form is weak. A whole rash of these articles were made which lack notability and with no real references like this one [76] and this one [77]. But until these sorts of articles are deleted or fixed up they weaken the Meher Baba template whose core is very notable and well referenced and well written especially the Meher Baba article itself. SaintAviator lets talk 21:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply If the main concern is the notability of this biography in respect to the Meher Baba template, the solution is to remove the article from the template. But this is not my concern here. I have read carefully Duffbeerforme's arguments about Brabazon's notability and I agree. I see evidence that this article can be an acceptable part of Wikipedia and I support keeping it. It is simply my opinion. As you see, I have not acted to protect any of the other articles you mentioned above, although they have all been in my watchlist. Hoverfish Talk 14:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I see that. The deletion of the Bill Le Page article surprised me a little, but not much as I had been reducing it. I did not defend it however. Even so I looked around in the articles for deletion log for articles not on my watch list associated with the Meher Baba template. I was not surprised by the other articles I mentioned having been nominated and after consideration hurried them along. They were simply undefenedable. And there are others to come no doubt i.e. the two mentioned above. Regarding this one I was 50/50. Debate about it it is good. I would suport its retention if some better refs were included. SaintAviator lets talk 21:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Reversing vote after consideration. SaintAviator lets talk 22:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Details of sources from AustLit.
    Keating, Ross (1996), "Francis Brabazon : A New Measure in Modern Australian Poetry", Religion, Literature and the Arts : Conference Proceedings, pp. 185–193
    general criticism
    Spies, Marion (1993), "Asien in zeitgenoessischen australischen Gedichtsequenzen", Australien zwischen Europa und Asien, pp. 109–121
    general criticism, unknown how musch is about Brabazon's work, may discuss The East-West Gathering
    Simpson, R. A. (15 February 1964), "Dedication", The Bulletin, vol. 86, no. 4382, pp. 46–47
    review of The East-West Gathering alongside 3 other reviews
    Barnard, S. T. (December 1963), "Rum Baba", Australian Book Review, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 45
    review of The East-West Gathering
    Johnston, Grahame (Winter 1958), "Untitled", Quadrant, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 92–93
    review of Cantos of Wandering alongside 4 other reviews
    Brissenden, R. F. (Autumn 1958), "Poetry Chronicle", Meanjin, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 199–204
    review of Cantos of Wandering alongside 12 other reviews
    Higham, Charles (26 January 1957), "Untitled", The Sydney Morning Herald, p. 12
    review of Seven Stars to Morning alongside 1 other review
    Jones, Evan (Spring 1957), "Nice Neighbours and Eccentrics", Meanjin, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 325–328
    review of Seven Stars to Morning alongside 5 other reviews
    Scrutarius (1954), "Untitled", Walkabout, p. 46
    review of Proletarians-Transition alongside 5 other reviews
    The second review of Proletarians-Transition does not provide enough details. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, as the subject was one of Meher Baba's closest disciples, worked closely with him, and wrote extensively about Baba and his thoughts, work, and principles. Prominent in his chosen field of endeavor. There now seem to be more than enough sources to form a Keep consensus. Randy Kryn 11:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete . Materialscientist (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Feyisetan Asagidigbi[edit]

    Feyisetan Asagidigbi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Seems to be too early: If I am right, he never played in a fully professional league and thus fails WP:NFOOTY. There is some coverage, but, as far as I am concerned, not yet on the level we require to pass WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 08:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Previously (2016 and 2017) two times PRODded and deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Larrikins (film)[edit]

    Larrikins (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The film was canceled. Fails WP:NFF. Koala15 (talk) 07:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Koala15 (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete since it is a film that never started production after years in development. Looking at Google News headlines from 2011 to before the cancellation, I see nothing that makes the development stand out compared to other failed developments. However, I would briefly mention this film at Tim Minchin and Chris Miller (animator) before proceeding with deletion. If anyone has an alternative suggestion on what to do with the content, feel free to share. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per nom and Erik. Does not meet either WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 03:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 06:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Shyheim[edit]

    Shyheim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:MUSICBIO. One charted song, and no awards or nominations. Unable to locate any secondary sources to support notability as a musician, although much has been published about his criminal conviction. This should not, however, support an article per WP:PERP. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong Keep, obviously notable and subject has an album which is notable itself and has an article. The article could be improved yes, but the subject was also a B-list actor and a featured artist on numerous albums and singles for over a decade. Nothing gained and the encyclopedia is not improved by this deletion. Article has numerous inbound and outbound links. Some articles are shorter than others and not every single piece of valuable information is going to be a GA. Spurious deletion motion vigorously opposed. JesseRafe (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete, fails WP:MUSICBIO. The only three citations are to his vehicular homicide. Also fails Wikipedia:CRIME. Waters.Justin (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Please look at the additional links added to reference his musical career and film career, each notable. He passes #s 1, 5, and 11 before the recent edits anyway, so the claims of failing WP:MUSICBIO previously were unfounded. As an actor he has had multiple roles in major motion pictures and was a prominent recurring star on a long-running primetime major network television show, which passes the simple muster for WP:ENTERTAINER. This whole motion to delete is poorly founded. Look at how many inbound links there are to this page about this obviously notable individual! Why, instead of seeing a page that's not great is it your impulse to delete it rather than repair it? JesseRafe (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the references are not good. One is to a Wordpress personal blog, another mentions him only in passing, the NYT article did not even mention Shyheim. The other references only mention Shyheim as a rapper facing felony charges, and that is not enough to pass Music Bio or Crime notability. Waters.Justin (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is simply false. How is "famed urban musicians -- Shyheim..." not mentioning him in the New York Times? I'm missing a step. JesseRafe (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Trivial mentions are generally not considered notable enough to establish notability. Wikipedia:Trivial mentions. Waters.Justin (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree about the trivial mentions, but you are also missing the point. No one is arguing the allegation about WP:Criminal or whatever that is. He is a charted solo artist and an actor who has been in multiple major studio films and on major network primetime TV shows. There is more than a preponderance of evidence to establish his career more than satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER, should be case closed, inaccurate readings of the NYT source aside. JesseRafe (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • EXTREMELY STRONG KEEP. Very notable rapper. Velociraptor888 08:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - not notable! --Temp87 (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • ^This account seems to only exist to vote in deletion discussions and makes no attempt at pointing to policy or guidelines. JesseRafe (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is having an account just for voting on things not allowed on Wikipedia? --Temp87 (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • The problem is in every deletion/move/merge discussion you've weighed in on you've cited zero policy to back up your positions just flying by your whims. Please consult the welcome links on your talk page for some info about meaningful contributions to the encyclopedia you could make so that your comments in these back page discussions will be more grounded in policy. JesseRafe (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep. One charted song is all an artist needs if the chart meets the notability guidelines. On And On - his 1994 single - made #89 on the Billboard Hot 100. His debut album made #52 on the Billboard 200, and the follow up made #63. Shyheim has clearly had a long career in the spotlight and while not A-list, his collective achievements would qualify him for an article even without these positions. KaisaL (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 06:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Kuntal Chakraborty[edit]

    Kuntal Chakraborty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable journalist. Winged Blades Godric 11:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades Godric 11:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 06:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Deleted speedily by User:Ponyo. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Khem Raj Bhardwaj[edit]

    Khem Raj Bhardwaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The subjects is notable only for one event and I failed to find any significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources to pass general notability guidelines. I redirected the article to MTV Love School earlier but the author reverted it back few times so I'm bringing this here instead of just redirecting back again so that the decision will stick. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 06:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability was established in the discussion. Merging is possible but should be discussed using other venues as there is not enough support for that in this discussion. (non-admin closure) -- Dane talk 19:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Death & Taxes (film)[edit]

    Death & Taxes (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable film, written and directed by non-notable documentarian Orange Mike | Talk 01:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think that this could possibly serve as a redirect to the disambiguation page Death & Taxes. It has a review from Variety so it does at least warrant a mention on the page for Gordon Kahl, which means that a general mention could be left on the disambiguation page that mentions that Kahl had a documentary created about him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Death & Taxes and remove the in-WP links, as this would just create a circular redirect. I've linked to Kahl's entry at the disambiguation page, so removing the links would be the only thing left to do. I'd recommend leaving the history intact just in case more sourcing becomes available. Technically the two reviews can be enough to pass NFILM, but the overall information here is so brief that there's not much here that couldn't be already listed at Kahl's page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • My thought was to make this a redirect to Death_&_Taxes#Film, where this film is listed alongside the note "Death and Taxes, title of a fictional book written by one of the characters in Stranger than Fiction". There's enough coverage to justify this documentary being mentioned somewhere, just maybe not its own page. It's listed in the media section of the Kahl article, so it'd warrant being listed at the larger disambiguation page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The Variety and Billboard reviews found by Tokyogirl79 demonstrate that Death & Taxes passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I think readers are best served by a standalone article that discusses the film's synopsis and reception. A merge of the entire synopsis and reception sections to Gordon Kahl would be undue weight so some information would have to be trimmed even though I consider all the information pertinent and useful for readers. Cunard (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 06:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. It was brought here for notability; "Technically the two reviews can be enough to pass NFILM" (user:Tokyogirl79) so it's notable. May be a good WP:MERGE candidate but that could be discussed in the normal way. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Script. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Glen Power[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Glen Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Should be a redirect to The Script, but some editors insist on reverting to uncited, or poorly cited, article about his musician who has no indication of his own notability outside of the band. Onel5969 TT me 16:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect per nom. WP:MERGEREASON suggests that "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic". This article has been little more than an (uncited) one-liner for nearly 5 years. If it hasn't been expanded with that period (where 5 years is objectively a "reasonable amount of time"), then it seems to meet the criteria for merge/redirect. Guliolopez (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 06:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Merge Concur with Guliolopez's view. Finnegas (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Based on the research conducted and the contributions since the relist I'm satisfied that there's enough to close this. KaisaL (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    RuPaul's Drag Race Fashion Photo RuView[edit]

    RuPaul's Drag Race Fashion Photo RuView (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    As much as I love this webseries, it does not have enough significant coverage in reliable, third-part sources to warrant an article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: I found no reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 06:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Internet Lesbian and Gay Television Series, 1996-2014 But not so sure about the general notability. I'm new and not super familiar with all the policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvirgiliusmaro (talk • contribs) 19:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pvirgiliusmaro: The source is good and could be used in the article, but that source alone does not support why this should have an independent article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Aoba47: Here are my (slightly disorganized) thoughts:

    1. I don't think that RuPaul's Drag Race Fashion Photo RuView has enough notability on its own to have its own page. The webseries is a playlist hosted on WOWPresents, WOW's YouTube channel. I looked through all of the episodes in the playlist, and, with 4 exceptions (1, 2, 3, 4), the videos have about 150,000 to 450,000 views each. (Side note: the last video in the playlist is the music video for "Into the Great Wide Open" by TomPettyVevo and I can't find any explanation.)
    2. I'm hesitant to delete from existence the extensive tables of the results because we don't know that the information won't be valuable in the future. At the same time, I don't believe that they are appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. Maybe someone more invested than I in the RuPaul's Drag Race franchise would want to save it or put it on a personal blog so that the information, which has been compiled so thoroughly, is still accessible should it be wanted?
    3. There is no mention of the series on the page for RuPaul's Drag Race. Could the key information from the lead section be moved to that page? Perhaps in the section for related media? (Is that what a merge is?)

    In conclusion, I don't see a strong argument for its notability in and of itself, but I do think it is notable enough to be mentioned in RuPaul's Drag Race. Disclaimer: I don't actually watch RuPaul's Drag Race, so my observations of notability are from an outsider's perspective. Don't know if that matters. Also, I'm still learning all the policies, procedures, etc. so please let me know if I'm overstepping or if I've broken any protocol or anything. Also also, my bad on forgetting to sign my previous post. Pvirgiliusmaro (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Pvirgiliusmaro: You are not overstepping and I greatly appreciate your feedback on this. AfD is intended to be a forum for different opinions and thoughts. I would say this should be deleted outright, but if there must be a merge/redirect, then a small section can be made in RuPaul's Drag Race as it is the most connected to that. I do not think that the extensive charts have any real value on Wikipedia and I feel they are more appropriate for a fan Wiki. Someone did put a lot of work into the tables and that is admirable, but they still do not really have a place on here. I would agree that the "Related Media" section is the most appropriate place for a merge/redirect if that decision is reached. Thank you again for your comments, and I hope you are enjoying your time on Wikipedia! Aoba47 (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  08:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    KV Madhusudhanan, former IG, CRPF[edit]

    KV Madhusudhanan, former IG, CRPF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    There is no reference for this person. Seems to be an incomplete page with very little information. Adamgerber80 (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete There are no citations. A Google search didn't produce any decent sources. Imalawyer (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 06:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: An unsourced WP:BLP on a police official whose highest rank does not appear inherently notable ("An I.G. holds the second highest rank in hierarchy, just below the Director General of Police (DGP) or Additional DGP, and just above Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG)." link). I am seeing no coverage beyond him making a speech at a passing-out parade of new recruits ([78]), which is also insufficient for encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Jorn van Deynhoven[edit]

    Jorn van Deynhoven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Article does not seem to meet the notability criteria for musicians. Hakken (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 06:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ohio gubernatorial election, 2014. Consensus was clearly to either delete or redirect. Redirects are cheap. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 03:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Anita Rios[edit]

    Anita Rios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    A defeated minor party candidate for office who fails WP:NPOL and has no other credible claim to significance AusLondonder (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 07:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep passes WP:BASIC. Rios has received significant coverage in multiple published sources.--TM 12:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That coverage is routine coverage to be expected of a candidate for office. Why should the criteria at WP:NPOL not apply?
    WP:ROUTINE regards events, not biographies, and as such is not applicable in this case. Per WP:BASIC, "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below", which should answer your question regarding the applicability of NPOL.--TM 14:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ROUTINE is a question of the context in which the coverage is being given, not a question of what class of topic the article represents. An election campaign is an event — so coverage of a person in the context of an election campaign is ROUTINE, because its context is one in which such coverage is simply expected to exist for all candidates regardless of their enduring notability or lack thereof. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Does not meet basic criteria. In almost no cases are candidates for office notable. Routine applies here, because there is routine coverage of election candidates, but this does not provide good ground for making articles on people. The coverage of Rios does not reach beyond her failed campaigns.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Candidates for office are not notable just for being candidates — to qualify for inclusion, she would need to either (a) be shown and properly sourced as having already had preexisting notability for some other reason besides the fact of being a candidate, or (b) be shown and properly sourced as having garnered far more than the merely expected level of media coverage that every candidate for any office could always show. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Ohio gubernatorial election, 2014. The campaign is a notable event and there is some coverage of the fact the subject qualified for the general election as a write-in candidate. Otherwise delete per nom and Bearcat. --Enos733 (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 06:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    K Himaanshu Shuklaa[edit]

    K Himaanshu Shuklaa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    All the references are passing mentions without any in-depth coverage. Also, fails to meet WP:BLP1E. Page creator objected to the PROD so I am nominating for AFD for discussion to reach a consensus about the notability of this person. Malunrenta (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have come across many articles here on Publicists. However, i am trying to improve the article more with reliable sources. K Himaanshu Shuklaa is a famous publicist in Bollywood. (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Can only find fleeting mentions of his actions. Needs substantial coverage, from reliable, Independent sources, not based on press releases or anything issued by him, his company, friends or clients.
      The current refs are:- 1) showed his client a photo, 2) organized a photoshoot, 3) issued a tweet, 4) tweeted a link to his blog - the sort of non-noteworthy things publicists do every day. - Arjayay (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 06:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Following a relist and many contributions to the debate, I don't quite feel there's a concrete consensus here. Allowing the AFD to run on would only, surely, continue with the Keep/Redirect (there's not enough to indicate outright deletion is in favour here) split. I think it's best to strike this off as a no consensus at this time. KaisaL (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Dara Fitzpatrick[edit]

    Dara Fitzpatrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    An individual is not notable simply because s/he died in a notable incident. There is no indication that the subject meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Prod tag removed. ... discospinster talk 02:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete (or redirect) - Respectfully have to agree with nom. (The primary subject, as covered in 2017 Irish Coast Guard S-92 crash and elsewhere, absolutely meets the relevant notability criteria for WP:EVENT. The guidelines however do not immediately support a standalone article or articles on the victim or victims of the (granted heartbreaking) event. Per WP:VICTIM and WP:BIO1E, people whose notability stems from their association with an event are generally covered in the article on the event.) At best the title might redirect to 2017 Irish Coast Guard S-92 crash. Guliolopez (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete (or redirect). Not notable in life, not varied by death. WWGB (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "WELL-KNOWN PILOT Dara Fitzpatrick has been named as the first casualty of this morning’s rescue helicopter crash." "not notable" is incorrect. IrishSpook (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Show me one independent source about her BEFORE her death. Oh wait, there aren't any! WWGB (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just one example of many from August 2013. IrishSpook (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete (or redirect) - Respectfully have to agree with nom. WP:NOT.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep . The individual's personal life and death has made headlines nationwide so to me it's notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.171.143.68 (talk) 10:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    — 51.171.143.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. Sure, we've never heard of her before her death, but, as the IP stated, reports are emerging as to her notability. RTE states "she became the first female commercial pilot in [Ireland] and went on to be the first female captain in the country," which I have added to her article. — Wyliepedia 10:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Again, I feel very uncomfortable with this discussion personally, given the immediacy and sensitivity of the situation. However, either the RTÉ statement ("first commercial pilot in Ireland") is not properly qualified, or is not correct. (The "first commercial female pilot in the country" was Cpt Gráinne Cronin, who became a pilot with EI in the 1970s, and became a captain with EI in the 1980s. In both cases Cpt Fitzpatrick would still have been at school). It's possible that perhaps RTE intended "first commercial *helicopter* pilot" or "first commercial *helicopter SAR* pilot". If they did, I'm not sure perhaps that that contributes to notability directly. Guliolopez (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a {{dubious}} tag. — Wyliepedia 11:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. First female Irish pilot to die on active service? Was on a TV programme profiling her job, crewed the first all-female helicopter mission..... all seems notable to me. The joy of all things (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete – No significant coverage outside of Wikipedia:ONEEVENT. Hirolovesswords (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Appearing on national and international television documentaries, professional YouTube videos, radio, TV, online and newspaper interviews all before the tragedy. IrishSpook (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect. I suggest a temporary redirect. If further information about her comes to light, the article can then be reinstated without controversy. Deb (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Notable as per first in what she did and notable death sure to be remembered for years to come ...stop deleting just to delete...Masterknighted (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I see literally dozens of RS Sources in Google News. Notable per sources and the sad "first" as very nicely explained above.104.163.144.60 (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - The reason why i created an article for Dara Fitzpatrick was because of the headlines she made in my native country Ireland and her being an influence to all Irish women considering her accomplishments. Optimistic Wikipedian (talk)18:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect. There is clearly only ONE correct move at this juncture and that is to REDIRECT to 2017 Irish Coast Guard S-92 crash and add salient info from the Fitzpatrick article to the latter article. You're all very welcome. Quis separabit? 02:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect. Agree with Quis separabit's assessment. Finnegas (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly Keep. Capt Dara Fitzpatrick was indeed notable long before this tragic incident, contrary to some of the above. She was a featured in a number of television documentaries which aired on major Irish and UK television networks and would have been very well known within the UK & Irish and European SAR community. She was the pilot in charge of Rescue 116, she was the Irish Coast Guard's most experienced and most senior pilot and one of the most experienced helicopter pilots of any agency or organisation in Ireland and the British Isles. Capt Fitzpatrick was, as one of the most preeminent female pilots in Irish aviation, a trailblazer and I fully support a separate, individual article about her. As regards the 3 other victims of this tragedy, who are still unfortunately missing, referenced can and will be made to them in the overarching 2017 Irish Coast Guard S-92 crash article. I strongly reject the rapid deletion tagging of the article on Dara Fitzpatrick, given the fact this incident only occurred a matter of days ago. It was unnecessary. IrishSpook (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Furthermore, other issues such as a lack of resources dedicated to the Defence Forces resulting in the inability of the Irish Air Corps to launch top cover which was originally requested by the Irish Coast Guard which led to Rescue 116 being deployed, will be covered in the main 2017 Irish Coast Guard S-92 crash article. That article is about the incident, not a biography about the people involved in it. IrishSpook (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect. She is quasi-notable for two things: the crash and the TV series. Neither on its own is enough for WP:NOTABILITY; I don't think even added together she meets the threshold, at least not yet. WP:NOTMEMORIAL If she becomes an important symbol in the months ahead that may change, but it will be simple to revisit the question then.
      • the fact that she was a woman has probably framed media coverage of the tragedy. But "first woman from country X to do job Y" is not a guarantee of notability. A desire to celebrate women blazing trails in male occupations cannot ignore WP:NOTADVOCATE.
      • RTE made three seasons of 6-part documentaries about Irish search-and-rescue: Rescue 117 (2010), Rescue 115 (2011), and Ireland’s Search and Rescue (2012). None of the three seems to have a Wikipedia article. Fitzpatrick was the lead pilot in Rescue 117, but I don't think most such factual/fly-on-the-wall series have articles about the "star". As it stand, not even the series themselves have a Wikipedia article.
      • jnestorius(talk)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 06:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or redirect - Appearing in documentaries about a wider subject does not confer notability, nor does dying in a notable crash. #WP:BLP1E — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Masterknighted, at least Merge if nothing else. ground-breaking career, tragic death Montanabw(talk) 02:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to 2017 Irish Coast Guard Rescue 116 crash I don't see enough coverage before this event. The claims about being the "first female commercial pilot" seems to be incorrect. A redirect works well here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect to what? There's no information on Capt Fitzpatrick on that page other than a reference being made to her name and the article on her. IrishSpook (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Well-known notable Irish woman. From 2009 "Sea crash pilot is saved by Cpt Dara ... This daring rescue operation in Wexford is just another day at the office for Dara Fitzpatrick."[79] From 2010 "For the first time ever RTÉ cameras have been given exclusive access to the Irish Coast Guard's helicopter Search and Rescue service ... Leading some of the most dramatic rescues ever caught on film is chief pilot Dara Fitzpatrick who is one of only a handful of female civilian rescue pilots in the world."[80] From 2010 "The crew of an emergency search and rescue helicopter has been awarded the Best of Irish Award for rescuing a stricken pilot when his light aircraft crashed into the Irish Sea. ... Captain Dara Fitzpatrick ... present to collect the award."[81] From 2013 "TWO Coast Guard pilots have made Irish aviation history by flying the first all-female mission for the service. The Shannon-based search and rescue Helicopter R115 flew its first missions with a female pilot and co-pilot, Capt Dara Fitzpatrick and Capt Carmel Kirby."[82] And: "In 2007, the Irish Bishops’ Conference produced a series of videos on the theme of alcohol and the challenge of moderation. In this first part, we get an insight into the work of Irish Coast Guard helicopter pilot Dara Fitzpatrick."[83] Aoibheann Dubheasa (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per IrishSpook and Aoibheann Dubheasa References show she is not just notable because of the news of her death. Seems a sight more worthy of retention than a whole load of trivial articles we find in this encyclopaedia on anime characters, pointless reality show 'celebrities' and the like. Only arrived here to spell-check, but some things seem worth defending. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bishonen | talk 21:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Precious Child[edit]

    Precious Child (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Notability. Can't see anything in the way of respectable references. TheLongTone (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep Respectable references listed include:

    Paste Magazine, 2.8M unique visitors a month http://www.trafficestimate.com/pastemagazine.com

    Bloody Disgusting, 1.7M unique visitors a month http://www.trafficestimate.com/bloody-disgusting.com Example exclusive 3/8/17 Todd Mcfarlane: http://bloody-disgusting.com/exclusives/3427169/todd-mcfarlane-just-completed-spawn-screenplay-exclusive/

    Soundtrack for Neil Gaiman (30M+ books sold) authorized biographical documentary: IMDB http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5758302/ . Pluffleses (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC) — This SPA editor (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a band article not an Albums and songs article.Pluffleses (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The problem with the references cited in the "keep" ivote above by this article's SPA author are that they--like most of the other sources--are essentially submitted promotional video content that is more than half comprised of an interview (or a written statement) by the subject. Regardless of the sources numbers of unique visitors, these are first person references. What's missing regarding this subject is significant independent, third party coverage. The other sources in the article are user submitted sites, trivial mentions, or unimportant music sites/blogs. As for the soundtrack, it can be debated if an IMDB credit as "supervising sound editor" and "composer: additional music" for a documentary posted on Vimeo is encyclopedic-worthy. ShelbyMarion (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The percentage of the article that is editorial vs. statement/interview is immaterial. The sources themselves are notable and accordingly, coverage by these sources itself is notable. Bloody Disgusting, Paste are reputable sites/blogs not content aggregators. This counts as independent third party significant coverage. I do not believe any of the sites cited are user submitted sites and triviality and importance can be debated. Several of the sites cited including Antihero, Brutal Resonance, and Coma Music are genre specific sites and while they may not have the unique visitor count that Paste has they are culturally relevant, impactful, and notable within specific music genres. The IMDB reference is cited to prove the work in the Neil Gaiman film. Distribution via Vimeo direct does not reduce the notability of the film and subject. A google search for the film (which someone needs to write an article for) returns coverage at Entertainment Weekly, Collider, Nerdist, Deadline [84]. Pluffleses (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC) —This SPA editor (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Your statements are only partially correct. Yes, it is third party coverage. But is it significant coverage? There's only 2 sources present, and they both seem extremely short. Considering how much of the article remains unsourced, or covered by first party sources, I would think that there is not significant coverage. Also, the content itself is important to factor in. Things like "interviews" and "press releases" are often not considered to be "third party coverage", even if posted by a third party website, because the account is largely (sometimes entirely) from the first party itself. Sergecross73 msg me 18:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 06:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Composer: Additional Music specifically means music that is not the theme music or orchestration. An example: "Eye of the Tiger" from the movie "Rocky".Pluffleses (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC) — This SPA editor (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment This has already been relisted once and it is now on AfD discussion day 15. I request this discussion be closed with KEEP consensus. The concerns of the editor and user were addressed in the above comments and article was reinforced with further citations.Pluffleses (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC) — This SPA editor (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • You may only give a bolded stance once, and while you're free to advocate a "Keep", its ludicrous to claim that there is a consensus to keep, when, at the point of writing that, it was literally 1 to 1 as far as delete vs keep stances go. (and 2 vs 1 including the deletion nominator.) That's literally not the definition of a consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 18:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I can't find enough coverage to meet the WP:GNG. The article is currently very WP:PROMOTIONAL sounding, with lots of name-dropping going on, and is mostly unsourced or sourced to first-party accounts. The third party sources - there seem to be two - cover very little of the subject, leaving much of it unsourced or sourced to first party accounts. And that's if they're even considered reliable at all. The article creator's argument for their reliability is based solely on web traffic, not our hallmarks of writer credentials, editorial policy, etc. If the (unsourced) claim that the subject is currently working with music producer Ulrich Wild is true, it could be more of a WP:TOOSOON situation - maybe the sourcing will come down the line - but right now, the sourcing just isn't good enough, especially for a WP:BLP. Sergecross73 msg me 18:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 03:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  08:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Behroop[edit]

    Behroop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No evidence of subject having achieved sufficient notability at this time. PROD removed w/o comment. —swpbT 14:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 14:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 14:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per swpb. Article cites no sources and does not display any real notability at this time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Search of Urdu sources?
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 06:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: No coverage. SL93 (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  06:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Worst-Case Scenario series[edit]

    Worst-Case Scenario series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:NBOOK and has been tagged as advertising for five years. If it can't be improved, then it is inherently promotional for the book series and should be deleted. Bri (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Well-known book series, but this article needs a desperate WP:RESCUE. Yeah, it inspired some cable shows, but this basically gives us a product guide, a definition for what the concept was and nothing more. No improvement in ten years (and even after the 2010 series) so it might be time for those interested in this article to get it sourced or see it deleted. Nate • (chatter) 22:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don't think that the article is as bad as all that. It's not really promotional per se, just more of a bare bones list of the content that has been released so far in the series. I suppose someone could argue that this is a bit of a catalog in that regards, but there are no links to the product page and it's expected on Wikipedia that we would have a list of content released in a specific series. I would argue that the best case scenario here (pun intended) is to merge the content from the TV series into this article (which I'll do shortly) and keep this article as a whole. Sure, it needs more TLC but the article isn't so bad that it needs to be TNT'd and it does seem to meet notability guidelines as a whole, since there was a TV series based on the book series. It only ran for one season apparently, but it does look like the book series is notable. I just think that deleting this outright just isn't really the best option here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The series as a whole is notable, given the two tv series and the plethora of reviews and articles that are out there. I've added a few here, but you can find still more by looking at Highbeam. The page isn't inherently promotional and I've added enough sourcing to justify the series passing notability guidelines. I've also merged the content from the two TV series since there's really not much to justify them having individual pages, given the limited information at either entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
      1. apRoberts, Alison (2001-11-20). "How bad can it be? - A changed world has made worst-case scenarios more than a game". The Sacramento Bee. Archived from the original on 2017-03-24. Retrieved 2017-03-24.

        The article notes:

        "The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook" and its spinoff books and products provide a case in point. They have capitalized on our appetite for imagined peril with a winning mix of humor and real information for readers who like action movies and what-ifs. (Bigger kids especially love them.)

        ...

        "The books that we published to entertain and amuse didn't seem quite so entertaining and amusing to us anymore," says Dave Borgenicht, who writes the worst-case books with Joshua Piven.

        Still, sales continue to move briskly for the books, and those in the worst-case-scenario business are banking on our appetite for more. A board game and greeting cards and more worst-case books are heading our way. TBS reportedly is planning a television series based on the idea.

        In the 40 scenarios covered by the first handbook, published in late 1999, the entry on "How To Land a Plane" suddenly seems more like required airport reading than a diversion. In "The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook: Travel," several excerpts are eerily apt: "How To Survive an Airplane Crash," "How To Survive a Hostage Situation" and "How To Navigate a Minefield."

      2. Precker, Michael (2003-09-17). "'Worst-Case Scenario' series comes to the rescue of office disasters". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2017-03-24. Retrieved 2017-03-24.

        The article notes:

        You may be curious about how to fend off a shark, survive an avalanche or leap from a motorcycle into a moving car.

        But odds are you'll never need to apply those lessons, which made the first "Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook" a fun but unnecessary read.

        ...

        Piven and David Borgenicht, who live in Philadelphia, have turned their pessimistic perspective into a franchise. Beginning with the original Worst-Case Scenario volume four years ago, the authors have sold about 5 million books by dreaming up awful dilemmas and figuring out how to solve them.

        The formula was simple: think up the worst "what-ifs" you can - from malfunctioning parachutes to marauding alligators to quicksand - and find an expert to offer advice.

      3. Clark, Jayne (2001-04-27). "'Worst-Case' writers' newest scenario: Runaway train to fame". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2017-03-24. Retrieved 2017-03-24.

        The article notes:

        Travel is fraught with figurative land mines, but if you ever find yourself navigating an actual minefield, better hope you've packed a copy of The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook: Travel (Chronicle Books, $14.95). Just out, the slim, danger-red volume reads like a Joy of Cooking for raging paranoiacs. Included are step-by-step directions for grappling with highly unlikely situations, from dodging land mines (1. Keep your eyes on your feet. 2. Freeze -- Do not move any farther) to passing out bribes (Be friendly, but aloof).

        In this sequel to their best-selling The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook, Joshua Piven and David Borgenicht have once again produced a very funny guide with a deadpan tone aimed at armchair Walter Mittys, as well as wannabe Indiana Joneses. Borgenicht briefs USA TODAY's Jayne Clark about surviving the danger that surely awaits even the most prudent traveler.

      4. Hanrahan, Jennifer (2002-02-02). "It's a jungle out there - Dating, sex latest topics of survival book series". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2017-03-24. Retrieved 2017-03-24.

        The article notes:

        That's where "The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook: Dating and Sex" (Chronicle Books: $14.95) comes in. The book is chock full of advice on coping with such dating dilemmas as how to carry a date who is passed out, how to deal with a bad kisser and what to do if your shirt gets caught in your zipper.

        "There are plenty of books out there that provide guidance on how to find Mr. or Ms. Right," say the authors in the introduction. "This is the only book that tells you how to escape from Mr. or Ms. Wrong. Identify an ax murderer, slip away from a bad date, survive when your credit card is declined . . . "

        The dating and sex manual is the third installment in the survival handbook series written by Philadelphia authors Joshua Piven and David Borgenicht. Their previous best sellers, "The Worst Case Scenario Survival Handbook" and "The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook: Travel," offered tips on escaping from quicksand, fending off an alligator and surviving adrift at sea.

      5. Ross, Michele (2001-08-26). "A vacationer's guide to coping with land mines and espionage". The Plain Dealer. Archived from the original on 2017-03-24. Retrieved 2017-03-24.

        The article notes:

        When I read the title of this new book, "The Worst-Case Scenario Handbook: Travel," I grabbed it. Who could need more help with worst-case travel scenarios than a woman traveling with a husband and children?

        Harumph. The authors took the easy way out.

        The chapter on "How to Navigate a Minefield" should contain advice for what to say when your husband asks, during a five-hour car trip, "What do you think of my mother?" Instead we get tips like "Look for spikes, detonator, wires." Big whoop.

        ...

        However, the authors do offer translations for a brilliant and eminently useful phrase, perhaps to be used by a woman who has finally announced to her family that she will be on vacation, by herself, at an undisclosed location:

        "You will never make me talk."

      6. Stoffman, Judy (2000-07-31). "Escapist reading takes on new meaning - Hot seller helps people elude bears, bees and boredom". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2017-03-24. Retrieved 2017-03-24.

        The article notes:

        The sleeper publishing hit of the summer is turning out to be The Worst Case Scenario Survivor Handbook, a slim advice manual by two young men from Philadelphia, now in its fourth week on the New York Times bestseller list.

        Published late last year, the book built a following through word of mouth. A TV show and several sequels are in the works.

        ...

        Though the disasters of real life are more likely to be unpaid credit-card bills, lost keys, plugged toilets and teenage children from hell, what a lot of people seem to want to know is how to get out of quicksand, break down a door, land a plane when the pilot has had a heart attack, escape from bears, bees or mountain lions, deliver a baby in a taxi, escape from a sinking car and survive adrift at sea.

        Worst Case Scenario seems to have tapped into a deep vein of unnecessary apprehension, from Sydney, Australia to Sydney, N.S. The book is in its 11th printing, with a total of one million copies in print for the English-speaking market.

        In Canada it has sold 15,000 copies at $23 each. Raincoast Books of Vancouver, which also has the Canadian rights to the blockbuster Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire, has run out of copies and is waiting for a reshipment from publisher Chronicle Books.

      7. Joseph, Patrick (2003-03-23). "Trouble? Whip out 'Worst-Case Scenario' - Two books tell how everyone can become a super-hero". Ventura County Star. Universal Press Syndicate. Archived from the original on 2017-03-24. Retrieved 2017-03-24.

        The article notes:

        I recalled this episode recently while flipping through "The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook: Travel." A follow-up to the best-selling original volume the sequel is devoted to tight spots that can arise on the road.

        I read with interest short segments on such dire situations as how to escape from a car teetering on a cliff jump from a moving train and survive a high-rise hotel fire. There were even a few items that might have helped in our trip across the desert like how to control a runaway camel treat a scorpion sting and survive a sandstorm.

        The premise of the book might rightly be judged preposterous and to be sure the authors' tongues are often in cheek. The caution on the back cover for example warns that the "book may not be used as a flotation device." And then there's the entry on how to foil a UFO abduction.

        David Borgenicht co-author of the handbook with Joshua Piven said that while they intended the book to be humorous and entertaining they also took the research seriously. A list of their sources contains doctors along with a stuntman a horse trainer and an "elite French mountain commando."

      8. DeWolf, Rose (2001-04-23). "Happily Surviving". Philadelphia Daily News. Archived from the original on 2017-03-24. Retrieved 2017-03-24.

        The article notes:

        Certainly, what has happened to these two Philadelphians - happily, neither quicksand nor a 'gator - came as a total surprise to them. Borgenicht calls it "a beautiful fluke."

        In the last 18 months, the book of advice they compiled has sold 1.5 million copies. And it's still selling. A sequel, "The Worst Case Scenario Travel Handbook," hits stores this month, along with an audiotape version of the first book, narrated by Burt Reynolds.

        There are "Worst Case Scenario" calendars, a board game is in the works, and, in January, there will be a "Worst Case Scenario" TV show on TBS cable - produced by Craig Piligian, co-executive producer of CBS' "Survivor."

        Borgenicht, 32, and Piven, 29, are busy giving interviews (in May, they're scheduled to be on the "Today" show) and, presumably, keeping track of all the money they are making.

      9. McKissack, Fred (2003-04-27). "Now What? - 'Worst-Case Scenario' Authors Have Advice For Most Any Situation From Flying Leaps to Eternal Meetings". Wisconsin State Journal. Archived from the original on 2017-03-24. Retrieved 2017-03-24.

        The article notes:

        Well, welcome to the world of Joshua Piven.

        At 32, Piven and partner David Borgenicht are the co-authors of the ultra-successful "Worst-Case Scenario" series of cheeky, but well-detailed guides from Chronicle Books that began with the 1999 publishing of "The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook," which made both the New York Times' and Publishers Weekly's best-sellers lists.

        Since then they've moved from the ludicrously unlikely to shedding the light on those wholly realistic moments such as wishing you knew how to bail from some dreadful meeting with "Worst-Case Scenario: Work."

        Piven and Borgenicht's latest is set for release next month and has already received good press. This new edition does keep with providing entertaining and useful survival techniques as its predecessors, which include the original, plus books on enduring the worst possible hypothetical scenarios in travel, dating and sex, golf and holidays.

      10. Hageman, William (2013-07-14). "Adventures in Dating". Daily Press. Archived from the original on 2017-03-24. Retrieved 2017-03-24.

        The article notes:

        Luckily, we have David Borgenicht.

        He has written "The Complete Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook: Dating & Sex" (Chronicle Books). With co-authors Joshua Piven and Ben H. Winters, Borgenicht presents some 400 pages of potential disasters -- that bout of excessive gas on a date, for example -- and suggests ways to overcome the problem. Or at least minimize the damage.

        ...

        The book is the latest in the "Worst-Case Scenario" series, now numbering more than a dozen. Other topics include travel, parenting, weddings, college, paranormal, golf and survival.

      11. Davis, Phil (2000-04-23). "Yikes! Now What? When That Shark Bites With Its Teeth, Dear, Here's How to Survive". Los Angeles Daily News. Archived from the original on 2017-03-24. Retrieved 2017-03-24.

        The article notes:

        "The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook" (Chronicle Books; $14.95), is a funny and, yes, possibly even a helpful book. All the advice in it was compiled in detailed interviews with experts in specific dire straits, from emergency childbirth to jumping from a five-story building into a dumpster. Maybe it will help you walk on top of a train, jump from a moving motorcycle to a car or win a swordfight. Maybe not. "The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook" comes with no guarantees, only a warning ("DO NOT ATTEMPT TO UNDERTAKE ANY OF THE ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED IN THE BOOK") and a disclaimer ("THE PUBLISHER, AUTHORS AND EXPERTS DISCLAIM ANY LIABILITY").

        ...

        Both Borgenicht, 31, and Piven, 28, are mild-mannered writers from Philadelphia whose most risky excursions are driving or sharpening a pencil.

        The book was conceived in a mix of paranoia, fear and popular culture.

        ...

        They tracked down experts from Mountain Mel, a former U.S. Navy SEAL who told them how to make a fire without matches, to Chris Caso, a former UCLA gymnast-turned-stuntman whose high-fall credits include "Batman Forever'"and "The Lost World."

      There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Worst-Case Scenario series to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

      Cunard (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 06:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 06:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Bivins[edit]

    Mike Bivins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    PROD-ed because I do not see the article's subject meeting WP:JOURNALIST. Page author contested PROD by stating Bivins met WP:GNG for significant coverage in reliable sources but to me the coverage in most sources seems trivial (merely mentioning he was there and filming video for Periscope streaming). RA0808 talkcontribs 17:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 17:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 17:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 17:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, as Bivins' has been covered in the Washington Post, which is one of the nation's biggest newspapers but perhaps Bivins' entry should be reorganized to mention that he is notable for his protest coverage, and has been sought out for his opinions on protests, as seen in this video where he is interviewed by the news about his footage that showed a blogger pulling a gun on black lives matter protesters.
    Did you read the The Inlander (newspaper) article about Bivins? Inlander does 50,000+ copies, and they went into detail about his work, inspirations, and other things. To me, trivial is a box score, or a one word mention of a person. This is not the case with him. Here is another article about Bivins. I'm going to update the article. Mercury does 45,000 copies by the way. Another news channel had Bivins call into their live show to be interviewed about another experience reporting on protests at Portland's city hall. Pittsburghangelsforever (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia requires significant coverage. I'm not at all sure two articles in local newspapers meet that requirement. Kleuske (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Washington Post is not a local paper. Neither is the Inlander. Those are a long way from Oregon. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11/10/not-my-president-thousand-protest-trump-in-rallies-across-the-u-s/
    http://www.inlander.com/spokane/the-live-wire/Content?oid=2950780%7CPittsburghangelsforever]] (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He was mentioned in passing by the Wash. Post. That's not significant coverage. Kleuske (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He was mentioned 3 times and was quoted. Not exactly in passing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11/10/not-my-president-thousand-protest-trump-in-rallies-across-the-u-s/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittsburghangelsforever (talk • contribs) 23:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That was an accident and was swiftly corrected. I appreciate your input. Pittsburghangelsforever (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Accident" is probably not the correct term, but thank you for your prompt response. John from Idegon (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The article says: [his] reporting about civil unrest in the United States has itself been the object of news coverage.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Somebody wanting the article to remain might summarize the content of this coverage. (Currently, only three among these references are reused later in the article.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And another comment. I'm concerned about the PRODding of this article. (And no, I don't mean the part saying "This article may have been previously nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Bivins exists", which of course wouldn't have appeared back then.) The "concern" cited was "No indication of meeting WP:JOURNALIST." This sounds like good grounds for this AfD. But the template was attached to a short article that was soberly written and came with nine references to solid-sounding sources. Whatever your estimate of the notability of the biographee (and I haven't yet made up my own mind), even back in its PRODded state this looked like a conscientious attempt to create a decent article on somebody about whom usable sources existed. Hardly PROD material. -- Hoary (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Like Hoary, I have not made a determination, yet, about the notability of this subject. I, too, liked the writing style, a sober encyclopedic tone, well-cited from a few reasonable sources. The case for a journalist’s bio is pretty thin, though, maybe too soon, with the Washington Post article giving him 4 sentences, and the Inlander describing his work filming and live streaming from different demonstrations. Strictly speaking, this coverage is not so much about the person as it is about his work with the relatively new phenomenon in journalism of live streaming, and its use by traditional news outlets. With connections to social media and infotainment, possibly the subject might qualify as having “made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment” under WP:ENT? I am not aware of criteria specifically for internet celebrities, but maybe that is what is needed. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: What Hoary said about Bivins possibly being notable for something other than being a journalist gets at what I was talking about when I say Bivins should be considered notable under the WP:GNG. How many times does someone have to be appear on TV or in print to be considered generally notable? Pittsburghangelsforever (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't quite understand what you're referring to, Pittsburghangelsforever. As for your insistence that yes this man is notable, or your questions about what notability means, I suspect that this will do nothing to help the chances of this article's survival. If you do want it to survive, I suggest that you reread my comment above timestamped 00:33, 9 March 2017, and act on it. For even now, only three among a stack of eight references are reused. Is the "news coverage" merely trivial? (I don't know, because I haven't looked.) If it is, then cut the links as redundant. If no, it's not trivial, then use the links productively. -- Hoary (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hoary I had you confused with the other person. Thanks, I'll act on it. Pittsburghangelsforever (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 06:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kim Jong-nam#Death. A merge request may be asked for and done after a talk-page consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 06:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Siti Aisyah[edit]

    Siti Aisyah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Article is about a person accused of taking part in a serious crime, but not so far found guilty. The crime is notable, but Siti Aisyah as an individual is not, as sources discuss her only in relation to the crime. The article needs to be either deleted or turned into a redirect to Kim Jong-nam, as previously happened to the Đoàn Thị Hương article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    At the very least redirect. Why would we delete it outright when it's a plausible search term? @FreeKnowledgeCreator:, what is wrong with the plan: throw any relevant categories into the redirect, move sources to the main article, and keep this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, @Koavf:, I don't see exactly what you are suggesting. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Right now, Siti Aisyah is an article. I think that it is a reasonable search term (for instance, I searched for it here!). If we delete it, then there will just be a redlink--how is that helpful to anyone? It will also just encourage someone to remake it. Instead, replace the article's contents with Kim_Jong-nam#Death, move all of the information from the current article there, and keep the categories that are on the page (such as Category:1992 births) for navigation purposes. Don't you agree that this is a better option than deletion? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said at the outset, I see nothing wrong with a redirect. Nor would there be any problem relocating relevant material from this article to Kim Jong-nam. I don't care about the categories. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or Merge. No compliance with WP:Before. Tons of articles around the world on her involvement. And even though this is a single incident, it has international interest and implications. Deleting this is like deleting Lee Harvey Oswald, who was a loner involved in a single incident. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand a merge, but not keep. There is undoubtedly plenty of coverage on Siti Aisyah's alleged involvement in the murder of Kim Jong-nam (we have to be careful here as she has not yet been convicted) but the coverage only deals with her alleged participation in the crime, it is not really coverage of her as an individual. She is hardly the equivalent of Lee Harvey Oswald. She is more like her alleged accomplice Đoàn Thị Hương, whose article was turned into a redirect with no objections. Can you suggest any reason why Siti Aisyah would be more deserving of an article than Đoàn Thị Hương? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge She is a key figure in an important event so I would oppose deleting the article completely, but at the same time I don't think she in notable independently of the murder of Kim Jong Nam. To me the obvious thing to do would be to merge this article with Kim Jong-Nam and have it redirect to the section about his death. Imalawyer (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)CU-blocked sock. Winged Blades Godric 06:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - OK sources, the article subject seems notable enough per WP:GNG. and WP:CRIME.BabbaQ (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is your evidence that the sources are about Siti Aisyah as an individual, as opposed to being about a crime in which she allegedly took part? And why would Siti Aisyah be more deserving of an article than Đoàn Thị Hương? Per WP:EVENT: "People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them." If you want to make a convincing case for keeping the article, BabbaQ, then please show just what else Siti Aisyah is known for. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 06:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If consensus cannot be found to keep the article, I believe it would be humane and only sensible to turn it into a redirect. It is undesirable to have an article about a living person who is not genuinely notable, especially when the only reason they are in the news is their alleged participation in a crime. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  08:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Crisis in the Kremlin (film)[edit]

    Crisis in the Kremlin (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Not a notable movie by any stretch of the imagination, even though Theodore Bikel got second billing. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Hollywood Reporter is perhaps the only report that mentions the movie in passing. Fails NFILM and other general notability parameters. Lourdes 06:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Non-notable film according to my search. Roger Corman rules, but this film fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Little Jimmy's Memes[edit]

    Little Jimmy's Memes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This article is a mistake, and was meant as a test. Eprash (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC) Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Jimmy's Memes[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthony E. Meyer[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Anthony E. Meyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Another rich venture capitalist; article betrays a bunch of "I work for Mr. Meyer" edits that fluff up the article. Not notable via the GNG, as far as I can tell; there's a CUNY webpage about a donation, but I don't see significant discussion of this person in reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ah--I see this has been at AfD before, with a predictable result. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: We're not Linkedin for rich people who are not president of the U.S.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Anthony E. Meyer is the son of a wealthy person and not notable himself per my research. The page's main sources are commercial websites created and controlled by the subject. "I work for Mr. Meyer edits" indicate subject likely uses Wikipedia to build his image for commercial purposes. Zhang213 (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete He's not a VC - this a family office / hedge fund. WSJ ref is significant - [85] - but not enough. But seeing how I can barely get hits on "Ocean Road Advisors" - a delete is in place. His philanthropy does get some publicity - but not enough. He might pass the threshold at some later date - but not as it stands.Icewhiz (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This article literally says "here's a guy with money". Who is he and why is he important to the world? Not there and not in the sources we can find, either. Bye. - Bri (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Johnny Keyser[edit]

    Johnny Keyser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Reason Smartwater123 (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The artist no longer goes under the name Johnny Keyser. He now goes under John.K. His wikipedia has been created for John.K and there is no need to have Johnny Keyser.

    • Surely in that case the best thing to do is to update the article with any sourced info from the new article John.k that is not already in Johnny Keyser, and then delete the new article and move the current article to that title. Or is it better to merge the info from the old article into the new one and redirect, to save edit histories of both articles? The problem is that the new article has been edited pretty extensively by different people, so simply deleting it as a copy and moving the old one to that title would remove that edit history. --bonadea contributions talk 07:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both Johnny Keyser and John.k: Two similar promotional articles created for an unsuccessful talent show competitor. An EP which reached no.46 on the Top Heatseekers album chart does not appear to be enough for WP:CHART and I am not seeing evidence of attained notability, whether by WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BASIC. AllyD (talk) 08:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 05:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete both. Fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 TT me 02:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: John.k page watchers weren't properly notified. Adding template there and relisting for a week.
    John.k (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 03:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Martin Iveson[edit]

    Martin Iveson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable person. Claim of notability lacks reliable sources. - TheMagnificentist 15:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    keep music artists for multiple notable video games + jazz career. article could use more sources added, so. Shaddim (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Seems to have a credible and respected career in the industry but lacks the significant, independent, third party sources necessary to qualify for encyclopedic importance. If an editor provided better significant sources I could be persuaded to change my vote; my searches under both “Martin Iveson” and “atjazz” only turned up the usual kinds of things one would expect to confirm existence. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete run of the mill music creator with no indepth, reliable 3rd party source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 18:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to List of tallest buildings in Sydney. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 06:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The Peak Apartments[edit]

    The Peak Apartments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    A WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable residential development. Significant RS coverage not found. I've found one press release and one catalog listing. The content is routine: how many units, etc. Notability not inherited from the Paddy's Market atop of which the building sits.

    Tagged for notability since 2008. Created by Special:Contributions/Mynameisbobobobob with no other contributions outside of the Australian real estate market. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, for the reasons outlined by the nominator. Even the title of the cited 1997 offline article doesn't suggest it is solely about The Peak. Sysney has a large number of tall buildings so this residential block isn't remarkable in any respect. Sionk (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If consensus ends up being to delete here, I would strongly suggest a redirect to List of tallest buildings in Sydney -- Whats new?(talk) 23:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: The list-article List of tallest buildings in Sydney contains substantial assertion (omitted from the AFD subject article) that the subject was "Tallest residential building in Sydney from 1996–1997" and it is still tied for 21st. I don't doubt the accuracy of that; it should be in the article. I expect that newspapers covered the construction in sources that are not conveniently online to find right now, though I haven't looked. I waver but suggest Keep rather than merge/redirect; nothing is gained by removing this from view IMHO. Certainly the outcome should not be an outright delete; merge/redirect to the row in the list-article is far better. --doncram 03:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. I really want to support Doncram, but I can't find anything reliable that discusses the topic, and I just don't think that the claim Doncram identified is a reason to keep the article. However, I also don't agree with the nominator's claim that this is a promotional article. Sorry, closing admin, I can't help you one way or the other. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I really want to support Doncram as well; theoretically it may be notable. Unfortunately I suspect few avid historians of the history of The Peak Apartments exist, as there are currently no endowed chairs for this endeavor. I've rescued worse before but the muse has not moved me on this one.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: From searching on "Peak Apartments Sydney 1996 construction", yields, behind paywall for me: The Sydney Morning Herald from Sydney, New South Wales · Page 87 / [https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/123768159/ Aug 31, 1996 - ... Herald (Sydney, New South Wales), Saturday, August 31, 1996, Page 87. ... ON THEIR BOOKS Under construction in the CBD Leighton Sydney .... apartment development and the $125 million Peak Apartments, and is also ..." Interesting that it was a $125 million project, and there would be more info in that article and others of that era. This is evidence of coverage existing; we don't need it in hand to do the right thing. --doncram 04:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nom's comment -- the linked coverage strikes me as routine: "it costs so much, its under construction, etc". "Tied for 21st tallest building in Sydney" is not remarkable either. Nothing stands out about this particular development to warrant an encyclopedia entry. However, I would be okay with a redirect to List of tallest buildings in Sydney as suggested. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Sydney. With much respect to Doncram, most of the coverage is routine property pages stuff. If we could get something to confirm that people were interested in its brief tenure as the tallest residential building in Sydney then maybe we could revisit this. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Research Department of Neuroscience[edit]

    Research Department of Neuroscience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable education department outside of Ruhr University Bochum. WP:NOTINHERITED. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Scheer (band). (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 06:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Audrey Gallagher[edit]

    Audrey Gallagher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable singer. Tag for not references has not elicited any improvement in almost eight years. Hakken (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if her youtube views are not sufficient to impress us, and I suspect they are not, and if her "List of Songs" is not sufficient to impress us (aside from the fact that every song is a completely vanilla title, and wouldn't be nice if she had one totally weird song name like "Wikipedia Wants To Kill Me and Spirit Cook My Entrails For Hillary Clinton") perhaps it can be re-directed to her prior band article, Scheer (band).--Milowent • hasspoken 04:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Scheer (band) I don't see enough independent coverage to warrant an article. OK with a redirect to the band article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Scheer (band), as per Lemongirl1942. Not enough coverage to warrant a stand-alone vehicle.Onel5969 TT me 03:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    WWE Raw Talk[edit]

    WWE Raw Talk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    WWE Network post-show for Raw-branded pay-per-view events. Not notable in its own right. Dannys-777 (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Dannys-777 (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Fails WP:GNG. Also, this appears to be copy-pasted from Pro Wrestling Wikia, like most of creator's articles. Nickag989talk 10:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete In the past we redirect non-notable WWE Network shows to List of current WWE programming but this doesn't even appear there.LM2000 (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And your reason is? Nickag989talk 18:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. North America1000 06:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    John A. Bryant[edit]

    John A. Bryant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Questionable notability since November 2011. Fails WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE and WP:GNG. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete A big problem is that the GM tech center was built in the 1950s, while Bryant died in 1938. His firm may be notable, but the sources do not suggest he is notable as a person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, on the basis that the Wikipedia article suggests his father was more notable than him. It reads very much like a genealogical peice. I've searched Findmypast's US newspaper archive and can't spot anything about him, his life or death. The only ciation at the moment is a book published by his company, so hardly a neutral source. Sionk (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, lots of things that Bryant was involved in seem to have attracted attention, but when you look at the literature there's not much about Bryant himself. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Simon Pollack[edit]

    Simon Pollack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This article fails to demonstrate the subject's notability by showing that he has "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Eddie Blick (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The article title is misspelled. It should be Simon Pollak. There is plenty of secondary coverage and I'm going to add some of that. He was one of the earliest U.S. ophthalmologists (first one in St. Louis, first eye/ear clinic west of Mississippi), in addition to his work founding the school for the blind. I'll move to the appropriate spelling. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep with the correct spelling Simon Pollak. An online search with this spelling reveals plenty of reliable resources to work with and establish WP:BIO notability. -- IsaacSt (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per WP:HEY. The as-nominated article already had a plausible case for WP:GNG but now the case is clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Nils Hämmerli[edit]

    Nils Hämmerli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:GNG, just a man with a job The Banner talk 14:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep As Leader of the Patrouille Suisse, its work on the Air14, Chief of the F-5 fleet of the swiss air Force, Chief Air Defense clearly notable. also covered in enough Books:
    • Peter Bosshard, Donat Achermann: Menschen Maschinen Missionen: Geschichten vom Militärflugplatz Dübendorf 1914-2014., Egg bei Zürich 2014, ISBN 978-3-033-04653-5, S. 126
    • Swissness 50 years Patrouille Suisse & 25 years PC-7 TEAM ISBN 978-3-906562-43-8
    • Patrouille Suisse - Backstage , Katsuhiko Tokunaga, Urs Mattle ISBN 978-3-909111-76-3
    • Aridio Pellanda: Ueberwachungsgeschwader 30 Jahre Patrouille Suisse Max Huber, Kerzers ISBN 3906401219
    • Schweizer Luftwaffe Jahrespublikation 2015, S. 71
    • Schweizer Luftwaffe Jahrespublikation 2011, S. 9–11

    FFA P-16 (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete just another pilot doing a good job but not noteworthy enough for a stand-alone article, very few leaders of aerobatic teams are notable, most references are publicity material for the team (where all team members get a mention not just the leader). MilborneOne (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Menschen Maschinen Missionen: Geschichten vom Militärflugplatz Dübendorf 1914-2014.,Schweizer Luftwaffe Jahrespublikation 2015, S. 71,Schweizer Luftwaffe Jahrespublikation 2011, S. 9–11 are NOT writing about him as Patrouille Suisse Leader.FFA P-16 (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Due to his job" is definitiv not enough to get commander of the PC-7 Team or the Patrouille Suisse. Also the job as Chief Air Defense is not a 08/15 pilot's job.FFA P-16 (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Due to his job" is that he he has to give interviews not because he is interesting but because his job is interesting. The Banner talk 22:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Banner:Wrong, Jahrespublikation 2011 and Menschen Maschinen Missionen are writen before he was Commander of the Patrouille Suisse. Also "Due to his job" is not an argument for deletion, because then every articel about an CEO on wikipedia can be deleted because a CEO is also just doing his job.FFA P-16 (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, my friend, you are wrong. It is definitely an argument to be used. Even with a CEO there should be sources available about the man/woman behind the CEO specifically. When there are only sources about the "the man/woman CEO", than that personon is not notable. Sorry. The Banner talk 23:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC) And please,k could you stop accusing me of wikihounding, as you did on your talkpage? It is unpolite and it is getting a bit silly and pitiful.[reply]
    And we have sources available about the man/woman behind the CEO.. Again in: "Menschen Maschinen Missionen"is written why he stayed at Dübendorf and not moved to Meiringen, its writen that made an apprenticeship as an architectural draftsman and wanted to develop himself in the field of architecture, as a friend once again awakened his interest in the flying who he had had in his childhood. Also its writen that he is a member of the Air Force rockband "Supersonic", comes from Zumikon, is married and has a son and a daughter. So its on paper about his job and about him as person.FFA P-16 (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    An article clearly written because of his job, not because the man is so interesting. The Banner talk 09:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And you are already contradicting yourself, because nobody asks for the existing articles about CEOs (or for Football trainer, etc) what you are trying to fault here.FFA P-16 (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We are discussing the article about Nils Hämmerli. And that article must show his notability on its own, not by a "but-they-do-it-too"-logic. That there are other bad articles is not an excuse to create other bad articles. The Banner talk 10:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you should better care about the othe bad ones, because we have here a media coverage who is well enough and again in "Menschen Maschinen Missionen" ist about him as Mensch (Human) and not about his job.FFA P-16 (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That article would never have been there without the job. The Banner talk 20:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    All literature mentioned is NOT about the person but he happenes to be mentioned for a function (which is the topic instead). Deleted in the german wikipedia.--2A02:1206:45A8:BC00:31D1:EAD7:1963:610 (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per insufficient sourcing and having been deleted on de.wiki in what looks to be 2016. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. After reading this discussion and the German Wikipedia AfD, I don't see sources that cover the man himself in any depth, as opposed to the aerobatic team he is part of. That team, the Patrouille Suisse, is the notable topic covered by the sources.  Sandstein  06:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Brief Cognitive Assessment Tool[edit]

    Brief Cognitive Assessment Tool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Having seen another of the author's articles which featured heavy use of ® and was associated with Mansbach I'm now incapable of seeing this article as anything other than an advert and, in places, a close paraphrase of the company's website. I'd appreciate the community's opinion. Cabayi (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: The Brief Cognitive Assessment Tool is a cognitive instrument, not a company. Countless neuropsychological assessments emanating from neuropsychology have dedicated wikipedia pages, such as Mini–Mental State Examination, Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System, Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery and the Wechsler Memory Scale etc., – all of which are cost-based and were developed by commercial entities. The Brief Cognitive Assessment Tool is used extensively in the public sector, such as in grants funded by the Maryland Office of Health Care Quality and by state governments such as Ohio's Medical program for cognitive assessment. It is also currently being used by various universities in the United States, Turkey, Poland, and China. In the healthcare spectrum, it is used in primary care settings, as well as in gerontology, neurology, oncology, and rehabilitation. The Brief Cognitive Assessment Tool, which has been withstood peer-review in several scientific journals, has encyclopedic merit as a wikipedia page. Rymace (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Rymace, this discussion isn't about whether the product is notable, it probably is, but about the article. In contrast to the articles you've cited the article you've written comes across as an advert. I note that most, if not all, of your contributions have been for products of Mansbach Health Tools (this article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The BCAT Working Memory Exercise Book - [86], ENRICH Brain Health - [87]). It appears your conflict of interest has left you tone-deaf to the way your article reads, and to the close paraphrasing of the company's material. You also seem to have a blind spot in describing it as "a cognitive instrument" overlooking its existence as a commercial product. If it weren't for the time elapsed since the article was created, and the number of editors who have touched it at some point, I'd have no hesitation in nominating the article for speedy deletion as an advert. Cabayi (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete raw scientific market. pure example of the thing. Nothing like this has a place in WP. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- overly promotional and on a subject of unclear individual notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No indication of notability, overly promotional. -- HighKing++ 11:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Has been listed for almost a month with no feedback, treat this as equivalent to an expired WP:Proposed deletion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Glenn Llopis[edit]

    Glenn Llopis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    A person purporting to be connected with the subject of this article, JimmyDonuts, made a GF attempt to edit and update it to bring it into compliance with BLP. He disclosed his COI at the Teahouse and, there, also indicated that if we couldn't get it up to a level of BLP acceptability, he - and the subject - would be keen to see it deleted. While the subject has been copiously quoted in WP:RS, coverage of the subject is - literally - just quotes. None of the biographical information contained in the BLP can be sourced to RS. If we remove unsourced or improperly sourced material we will be left with a BLP that simply acknowledges the individual is a living human who has been quoted in a number of media outlets and works as a motivational speaker. I feel like this is a person who probably will, in the near future, merit an article but at the present time the coverage doesn't meet the standard of substantial to pass GNG and we have a total lack of RS that would allow inclusion of even the basic information customary to a biography. I would suggest this be deleted with no prejudice for its future recreation. DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note - For ease of processing this AfD I've gone ahead and removed the aforementiond unsourced (and one instance of improperly sourced) content from the article. DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    J. Thomas McAfee[edit]

    J. Thomas McAfee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No independent references (nor could I find any) to justify notability. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter H. Grossman[edit]

    Peter H. Grossman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This isn't a biography, it's a plastic surgeon's advert, bombarded with very thin sources. Calton | Talk 12:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete should have been speedy-promoed. Not a WP article; not even close. Jytdog| (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as an advertisement. I particularly liked "with a degree in history before attending the prestigious Chicago Medical School." The Wikipedia article about the school says "The Chicago Medical School has had accreditation issues in 2004[2] and again in 2013,[3] when it was placed on probation by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) for non-academic reasons. In February 2014, the LCME determined that the school's areas of concerns were in compliance.[4]" Edison (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete another article on a non-notable plastic surgeon. We get a lot of these.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    BaCon[edit]

    BaCon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-noteable software. TheDragonFire (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If you search such as "bacon" "basic to c", etc. you can see there are some mentions even in IBM's website. --88.251.59.123 (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Probably also eligible for CSD G4 as well, given the tricky attempt to get this past a salting. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ian Bernardo[edit]

    Ian Bernardo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Z list celebrity. Some minor appearances but not enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR not WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete lacks coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is this not the same person as Ian Benardo, who has been deleted multiple times and is currently salted (log)? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is indeed. Slight change of credentials to pass the guards. Well spotted!! That is the longest deletion log I've seen. Can't fault him for being persistent. He is a truly persistent pernicious knidd. Delete and Salt I guess, or something stronger. scope_creep (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do Not Delete He is the Co-Host of THE NICK CANNON SHOW and Stars on Millionaire Matchmaker and Has his OWN TMZ PROFILE with NUMEROUS ARTICLES THAT ARE CURRENT. Just because you don't like him doesn't mean he isn't notable. .KoosAchtak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is not a case that I don't like him. Like or dislike doesn't come into it. I see you had an account at User talk:Koosachtak. Slyly changing your account name and article name, is not the way to write and get an article accepted on Wikipedia. He fails to meet the standard at WP:REALITY scope_creep (talk) 11:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_March_24&oldid=1142618084"