Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 April	2 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Violence and Punishment[edit]

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

Article is essay-like and does not seem to offer any prospect of being turned into a useful encyclopedic article. The lead sentence: "Violence and Punishment is Identical in practical reality as they have the same characteristics with different objective . " is a very questionable assertion. One source is supplied, which supports just one sentence. PamD 23:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article does not have a credible source and needs a lot of work. Perhaps it would be best to include this as a section to another article. Bmbaker88 (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like an essay and has no chance of becoming an encyclopedic article. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly an encyclopedic topic? But this is just a largely unsourced essay. Nothing verifiable to keep and smacks of original research. A Train^talk 12:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 14:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Durie Tangri LLP[edit]

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

Non-notable law firm written like an advertisement. All the coverage seems to be about its founder, with none of the coverage existing going in-depth about the firm. Notability is not inherited, and this firm fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that "all the coverage" is "about the founder." Most of the cited references report on the firm in general--for instance, https://www.law360.com/articles/610238/ip-group-of-the-year-durie-tangri and https://www.law360.com/articles/703653/6-ip-boutiques-punching-above-their-weight. Also, I would be glad to revise the language if you have suggestions on how to make it less "like an advertisement." Morninj (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The award that you link to doesn't appear to be enough to confer notability, and the sources combined don't seem to give the level of coverage that we would want under WP:NORG. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- promo page on an unremarkable law firm. "Boutique" strongly suggests "non-notable", while the content can be just as effectively housed on the firm's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I might have considered them notable had they been lead counsel on the Google case, but they weren't. They didn;t appear in court, but were one of the firms that helped write the brief. [1]. Otherwise this is just an advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 08:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- They were lead counsel in the district court. [2] (see p. 29), [3]. The district court's decision was later affirmed on appeal by the Second Circuit (in the opinion you link to). Morninj (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. The only apparent dissent is a lawyer; could they be in the firm as well? Ifnord (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not passing WP:GNG. The advertising aspect of the article should also be noted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANEW Marketing Group[edit]

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

Other than the archived Long Island Business news, I don't see anything that would show WP:CORPDEPTH. I also searched the individual companies listed as subsidiaries and unable to locate anything useful to establish notability. Company fails WP:ORG. CNMall41 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 03:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references are all lists with short blurbs about the listees -- nothing like a in-depth company profile showing depth of coverage or other notability. A Train^talk 14:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. even the the discussion has been limited, the conclusion is obvious. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Party[edit]

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

Fails NALBUM and GNG. No significant sources are avaliable to establish credible reasons to keep the article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources and nothing found to indicate significant coverage in independent sources. Not so much as a track listing, in fact. Even more basic than usual notability issues, also fails WP:V. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. clear A7 speedy DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quantified Ventures[edit]

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

Not a notable company. Google search turns up what it has written about itself, not what others write about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in-depth to establish notability. A few Google News hits but nothing one is a brief mention, one a press release, and the other 2 quotes from a company rep (more brief mentions). --CNMall41 (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Likely promotional and had some copyvio issues to begin with (since dealt with so not a reason for deletion in itself). Sources don't establish notability under our guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per User:CNMall41 and User:TonyBallioni--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G12. 100% of the content in the article was taken from [the Terrys Fabrics website https://www.terrysfabrics.co.uk/infographic/the-periodic-table-of-dreams/]. A Train^talk 14:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

The Periodic Table of Dreams[edit]

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

Seems to be an article about a non-notable illustration by a non-notable artist. A Google search for "Periodic Table of Dreams" (with quotes) gives 13 hits, none of them suggesting that the illustration is notable. Stefan2 (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to meet even basic notability. I don't find any reliable references to it. Also, I question whether current illustration qualifies for "fair use".Glendoremus (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not pass basic notability tests. Image seems to be a cropped version of an ad for a fabric store. --Imminent77 (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This should be speedy deleted as a copyvio of its own cited source. I'll tend to that presently. A Train^talk 14:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 East Midlands Counties Football League[edit]

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

And the other seasons:

No indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. None of these season articles cite any sources beyond match result or season result tables, plus one amateur summary of one week's matches ("sent from my iPad", no indication of editorial oversight, not a reliable source). Routine local news coverage of individual games likely exists but wouldn't help to establish notability. Huon (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As all the other level 10 leagues and all the teams competing in these leagues, East Midlands Counties League is just above the cut-off line and considered notable. Martinklavier (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Cut-off line for notability for English Football is between levels 10 and 11. East Midlands Counties League is at level 10.

There was a similar proposal to delete season articles for West Midlands (Regional) League in April 2016. The comments made on that occasion are probably relevant here, too. See here. Drawoh46 (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above comments about where we draw the cut-off point. Number 5 7 19:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the above keep comments are to my understanding universally incorrect. Whilst there is clear consensus that level 10 is the cut off point for notability for English football clubs, There is no such consensus that indicates seasons at this level are inherently notable. The previous AfD noted above was indeed keep, but relied on similar fallacies and claims of notability not backed up to recorded consensus. It is a statement of fact that there is essentially zero non-local non-routine coverage of games played at this level, let alone specific articles covering the season as a subject in itself. This is to ignore the clear WP:NOTSTATS issues with the article; issues which arise as a direct result of the lack of available coverage with which to write reliably sourced prose. Fenix down (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per prior consensus as mentioned above. See also the AfD linked to, which said the same thing overwhelmingly. Smartyllama (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as arguments above. Giant Snowman 15:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:SNOW Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Wolf Hohle[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Google returns almost nothing, and nothing of substance except his own taledent agency's bio of him. Largoplazo (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a procedure for handling articles not in english, it involves having them translated before putting them up at AfD, so that other editors can follow the discussion. DES ^(talk) 20:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even using Google Translate, there appears to be no claims of notability. That said, I had nominated this for BLPPROD... Evergr<tstyle="color:#3f5184;">eenFir (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Had the text as provided by google translate been the text of the article, I would have declined an A7 speedy pending some validation of the claims. However, that is not evidence of notability. I think waiting for translation would be better practice, but It seems i was wrong about the rules on that. DES ^(talk) 20:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no guideline that requires an article to be in English before any other reviewing activity, up to and including all approaches to deletion, is conducted (much as sources don't have to be in English for them to be considered sufficient to establish notability and to verify assertions made in articles). The first paragraph of WP:PNT even affirms this. Largoplazo (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notabilty and clearly promotional and written with a COI. @DESiegel:, WP:PNT procedure is clear, an article not being in English does not exempt an article from other forms of deletion as long as the reason for deletion is not "Not in English", this extends to CSD, PROD, BLPROD & AFD--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unsourced BLP, fails WP:GNG. Google returns two pages of unique hits, but nothing more than the usual social media accounts and a few passing mentions in lists of persons. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to satisfy WP:BIO, in English, Portuguese, or any other language. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article does not have any sources. Bmbaker88 (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Please it's WRITTEN ENTIRELY IN CAPS, it can't even be properly machine translated, and would have to be translated manually, typed out in normal lettering, and transwikied at least twice. Bearian (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy snow delete let's not waste any more time with this, it's not even in English. With this kind of thing I think it would be better to move directly into draft space or somewhere and then prod it or just decline. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 04:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Quazal[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Linguist ^talk|contribs 23:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

not notable enough to warrant own article. redirect to Ubisoft -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Company is very notable, and does not fail WP:SIGCOV. WP:VG's custom Google search hits just over 2500 results. As stated in my edit summary, there is more to come when I find the time to add, or someone does it for me. Lordtobi (✉) 20:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw did not look notable previously, but on further look, looks good. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. adequate consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Iranian project and its impact on the Gulf Cooperation Council[edit]

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

There is no proper indication of notability. The only reference is in foreign language. Reb1981 (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does the language of the source have to do with anything. Sources do not have to be in English. ~ GB fan 20:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a white paper from a think tank, pushing the POV that Iran absolutely positively cannot be trusted. • Gene93k (talk)
Delete Appears to be the executive summary of a paper by a Bahraini government-connected research institution (i.e., think tank). No indication that this paper has been referenced by anyone outside the institution. A very, very cut-down version might be mergable into Negotiations_leading_to_the_Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Non-negotiating_countries.27_positions but current text is too convoluted to create merge. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saranac snowshoe visa denial[edit]

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

One single incident about a non-notable snowshoe competitor that clearly fails WP:NOTNEWS. This is a rehash of the same information that appeared in (mostly local) newspapers. It may be relevant that the article creator has displayed a significant anti-Muslim bias, and it appears to me that this article was created solely to highlight an arrest of a Muslim that was at first denied entry into the United States. In addition, there are serious BLP issues, as the arrested man (now out on bail) denies all the charges and has not been convicted of anything. CrispyGlover (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is a WP:BATTLEGROUND AfD; I met User:CrispyGlover about an hour or ago when I pointed out his unusual editing pattern in a highly contested AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I looked at his edit history after E.M.Gregory (talk) falsely accused me of sockpuppetry, with no evidence, solely because I voted to delete on a different article that he is heavily involved in attempting to keep on Wikipedia, and he attempted to silence me on my talk page with veiled threats. This article stood out as one that was created solely with a particular point of view in mind, and because of the potential BLP issues, I felt that nominating for deletion was the right thing to do. WP:BATTLEGROUND has nothing to do with it, and E.M.Gregory accusing me of that is another attempt to silence any viewpoint that he feels is opposed to his own. CrispyGlover (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note That this case involving a visa denial to a competitive snowshoe athlete came to international attention with the allegation that the Trump administration was denying a visa to an athlete because that athlete was Muslim.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is completely disingenuous; you didn't create the article after the visa was denied, and that story was a mere blip. However, after the arrest of one of the men, you created this article within hours of the story breaking. You also didn't wait for a verdict, and neglected to mention in the article that the arrested man turned down a plea deal that would have let him go home, because he wants to clear his name. The BLP issues here are enormous, and your comments continue to support the view that you had a clear anti-Muslim agenda in creating this article. I would advise other editors to look at the list of articles created by you, and see if they see a pattern. It's rather clear. CrispyGlover (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CrispyGlover (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here: [4] is a gNews search arranged by date, to help editors evaluate this. search terms used: "Tanveer Hussain" + Saranac. Here is the search on terms: Saranac + Snowshoe + visa, showing international, national and local pre-arrest coverage [5] E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mere news. Srnec (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Adirondack Daily Enterprise may be tracking this story and there were two bursts of broader coverage for the visa denial and the arrest, but it doesn't seem to have the duration + breadth of coverage to pass notability per WP:EVENT. Eperoton (talk) 02:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'm willing to accept the opinions of User:Eperoton and User:Srnec, and redirect/ merge this to a single sentence with a couple of sources at Charles Schumer, related to his intervention to obtain the visa denies by the Embassy in Delhi, where the primary notability lies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created a single, sourced sentence at Charles Schumer to which this incident can be redirected and merged.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. WP:NOTNEWS, I agree it fails general notability and such. Kamalthebest (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This is clearly a fairly minor news event -- how many dozens or hundreds of similar events received local news coverage in the aftermath of the Muslim ban roll-out? There is no evidence of any lasting significance here which would be required to satisfy WP:EVENT. The "Sexual abuse charges" subsection is enormously problematic, and not just for the WP:BLP concerns. If the article is ostensibly about the visa denial event, then this section is entirely superfluous, as it discusses a separate, unrelated event. A Train^talk 15:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Maxim Gorky Fortresses. MBisanz ^talk 12:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

35th coastal battery[edit]

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

This page has no references, no explanation of notability, and contains strongly opinionated content. Elliot321 (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 19:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Maxim Gorky Fortresses. Duplicate topic of an existing article with no sourced content to merge. --Rogerx2 (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per User:RileyBugz. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this article is a duplicate, then it should be deleted. In addition, this article does not have any sources. Bmbaker88 (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the topic (Coastal Battery No. 35) is already covered in Maxim Gorky Fortresses & the article history is not worth preserving. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "The 35th Battery (Maxim Gorky II)..." is mentioned. Isn't this worth a redirect? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is more commonly called Coastal Battery #35 or Maxim Gorky II, I think, so no redirect is necessary. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see little reason for a company-level organization to have a page.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to little or no notability of the organization. Timofei Vatolin (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references are a concern. Already covered per comments above. I'm fine with a redirect, but this seems redundant and unverified here. South Nashua (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maxim Gorky Fortresses as duplicate of an existing article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect -- even if this was adequate referenced, it is mostly not about what the battery did in WWII, but about post-2006 actions for its conservation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Hawkeye7. Anotherclown (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Living Impossible Dreams[edit]

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

Seems not to pass WP:GNG and is written like an advertisement. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 19:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reviews, no independent references, no assertion of notability that would meet WP:BOOKCRIT. If the article is kept it requires a major paring back and rewrite for tone. A Train^talk 15:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seems awfully close to a narrow consensus to delete by my reckoning -- but two previous administrators have decided that there was insufficient consensus to close and chose to relist. The discussion hasn't really moved on from there. A Train^talk 14:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Zealand Test cricket victories[edit]

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

A long list of cruft that fails WP:GNG. Having a list of wins for any sporting team is not notable in itself. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons I gave when I Prodded it. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this list and move the information to the appropriate History of cricket in New Zealand article. – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't do that per WP:MAD AIRcorn (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it's a merge, which is not a delete! -- Shudde ^talk 10:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT/WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Rename to List of New Zealand Tests and merge in information from List of New Zealand Test cricket records. This article is basically a list of tests anyway and having a list of tests should be an acceptable and informative split from the already notable History of cricket in New Zealand (which would be too large if this information was merged directly into it). AIRcorn (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS GreenCricket (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Merge in content per Aircorn. A history of New Zealand cricket results is notable; so merging in losses and draws would be easily better than deleting all this content! I find some of the arguments a bit weak, basically saying it's cruft, but this is untrue, it's just incomplete. We have lists of 5-wicket hauls for individual players, but a list of victories by a Test-playing team is cruft? Really? -- Shudde ^talk 10:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone explain to me which of the four points at WP:NOTSTATS (which the delete votes have all linked to) this list violates? Certainly not points 1, 2, or 4, and point 3 states "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics" -- but this is not unexplained at all, it's very well defined. -- Shudde ^talk 10:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to Shudde, above) NOTSTATS does not say that those are the only things that violate the policy. In this case, the policy violation is explained in the words "As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia", which refers you to "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". --Guy Macon (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket is very much a game of stats. Almost all our featured lists are collections of stats (see Wikipedia:Featured lists#cricket. This is a relatively poor article, but that is not a reason for deletion. Also no one is currently saying the article should stay as it is. The concept of a list of tests is notable however, especially if it is considered a split from a countries history (I think it is notable in its own right, but am currently pushing for a much lower bar). I think Shuddes point is that this is more valid as a topic than many of the cricket lists currently accepted. AIRcorn (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sorry I that doesn't explain it at all. So being verifiable and true doesn't mean it can't be deleted? Okay, but that doesn't explain why this list should be does it? As for the second quote, how is this excessive detail compared to the many other cricket-related lists on the project? I don't understand how this is different or even worse. Editors can't just quote WP:NOTSTATS whenever they don't like a list and expect others to be convinced. Most complaints about this list stem from it's quality and it's current state, but that is not the same as notability. Let us focus on the later and leave the former until later can we? -- Shudde ^talk 17:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up at least (I can help), neutral on deletion. J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT delete This is a list of extremely notable events in NZ cricket history. Every NZ test victory makes the front page of the sports section of every metropolitan newspaper. If the victory was over a quality team such as Australia or England that makes the front page of every metropolitan newspaper in NZ.

There are many articles about cricket on Wikipedia with little or no "notability" such as:

2015–16 Plunket Shield season - just a list of some first class games in NZ in 2015-16 that will soon be forgotten.
2015 Cricket World Cup officials - a list of officials whose participation in this event has already been forgotten.
List of Sussex County Cricket Club grounds - a list that is of little interest to anyone outside of Sussex.

This is not just a list of stats. The following articles are far more a list of statistics than a "List of New Zealand Test cricket victories" and of much less notable events:

List of cricketers who have taken five-wicket hauls on Test debut
List of Pakistan cricketers who have taken five-wicket hauls on Test debut
List of Bangladesh cricketers who have taken five-wicket hauls on Test debut

The 6 other far less notable articles I have listed should not be deleted either.

The "List of New Zealand Test cricket victories" article certainly needs to be cleaned up/prettied up though.

User:Romiben did not sign their post above. FYI They are also the article's creator. Ajf773 (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And they're other stuff exists argument seems to be aimed solely at articles I've created or expanded. Wickets on debut is a rare stat, whereas a complete list of every match won is unnecessary. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph2302 The existence and safety of these and other articles highlights the impression that this nomination is more on quality than nobility. If I was so inclined I could nominate many of those articles with vague WP:CRUFT and WP:NOTSTATS arguments. [{WP:GNG]] is hard to apply to lists as they are almost always forks (or potential forks) from notable articles. With deletion (apart from a few occasions) you need to judge the topic on its potential, not its current standard. AIRcorn (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Eaver (wrestler)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 22:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 22:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 22:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 22:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is absolutely notable as a former Progress World Champion.

TDOldSpice (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As stated by TDOldSpice, he is a former champion of the Progress World Championship, a British professional wrestling promotion, and is therefore automatically notable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is inherently or automatically notable. Mkdw ^talk 21:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Holding the Progress Championship doesn't make him automatically notable. It isn't a major world-wide promotion. Having significant coverage in reliable independent sources makes him notable. Nikki♥311 00:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As above. Duffs101 (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Professional wrestlers must meet WP:ENTERTAINER to be included on Wikipedia. In other words he must meet WP:GNG or these additional criteria: 1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. 2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. 3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. - None of these keep votes demonstrate how these conditions are met and none are based on policy. Show me significant reliable independent sources. Nikki♥311 01:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hasn't come close to passing WP:SIGCOV or WP:ENT. You can't inherit notability even from the most notable subjects. and it wasn't that long ago that an AfD on Progress Wrestling closed with no consensus. Winning an award can boost a subject to notability, but as Nikki points out this isn't the case here. This championship is just one of the countless indy world titles out there. Pro Wrestling has no oversight committees so anybody can make their own world championships.LM2000 (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Progress World Championship has since been nominated for deletion.LM2000 (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update The article was deleted, was created again, and now faces another AfD.LM2000 (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Only sources are WP:ROUTINE Cagematch listings. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the name, "Progress World Championship" is not an actual world championship title or at least one not widely recognized. In any other sport, including WP:NMMA, that title would not be earmarked as a tier 1 or tier 2 title. With all that in mind, simply due to the sheer lack of WP:SIGCOV, this article should be deleted. Mkdw ^talk 21:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no significant independent coverage of him. Coverage is either from the promotion that employs him or is just a listing of statistics. His "world championship" carries no WP significance, especially since pro wrestling is considered to fall under entertainment not sports. He does not meet any of the notability criteria for entertainers. Papaursa (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Data Security (PDS)[edit]

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

Article doesn't meet WP:N. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. I was unable to find anything on this software application on reliable, independent sources. The references in the article are almost exclusively to the product's website. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable software per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article lacks substantial content. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mc Man Tangito[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Although this article contains a credible assertion of significance, in that Tangito is claimed as the "first to win Omudioga Artist of the Year", there is no indication that this is a significant award in any manner, and there are no other claims of notability in the article. PROD declined. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to fail WP:NARTIST. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep as Wikipedia is underrepresentative of Nigerian comedians. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Hyperbolic: I'm as much for making Wikipedia as universal as possible as the next guy, but with no reliable sources to draw from, how can we possibly keep this? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - institutional problem isn't it? Could be as notable in Nigeria as a Jay Pharaoh is in the US. How would we know? Hyperbolick (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Hyperbolick: We'd know by the presence of reliable sources, of which none appear to be available. Nigeria does have a press. And if it is an "institutional problem" (i.e. the lack of a robust press in Nigeria), that is not Wikipedia's problem to solve by ignoring the rules and allowing any and all content about Nigeria topics to be included. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - The point comes where we have to recognize the reality of press disparity. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Hyperbolick: I suppose you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this point. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - regardless of reason, there are no credible sources supporting notability.Glendoremus (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject lacks notability and the sources are not credible. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and has not been discussed in reliable sources. The lack of "reliable coverage" shouldn't be used as an argument here. The List of Nigerian comedians article clearly shows that there are other Nigerian comedians with stand-alone articles. If the subject was notable in his native country, he would have been discussed. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Kombucha[edit]

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

Obvious advertisement brochure for the product, including unsourced "product line up" that is something straight out of their website. Per WP:PROMO Wikipedia is not a proxy website for products or companies. Sources are mostly SPS or low quality blogs. There is one bit of substantial content about the trademark infringement but that is more about the company than the product, and wasn't important law. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT advertising. (note creator User:AddledAdult also created similar ad The Rare Barrel editing as an individual (rather than their former WMF employee account). Widefox; talk 13:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article looks like an advertisement and the sources are weak. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Referenced primarily by press releases, industry blogs and the company website. The one potentially reliable source only mentioned the product in passing, along with others. Not enough to support notability, aside from the promotional concerns already raised. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obvious advertising is obvious. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seb Zillner[edit]

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

Unnotable musician and composer fails WP:MUSICBIO and GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject is not remarkable or notable. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not finding any significant coverage; does not meet WP:BASIC at this time, and finding no evidence of WP:MUSICBIO being met. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While thin commentary has been made, potentially notable. Eggishorn's suggestion that it be taken through the AfC process is probably a good idea. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shrila Patitpavan Goswami Thakur[edit]

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

I am, admittedly, not well versed in Eastern religion, but a google search of the subject only produced four results. I don't know if there would be more in another language. There is no link to the article in other languages. The tone of the article is biased, at it presents supernatural events as fact. It is also devoid of any references. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are few articles available online, where as there are large number of offline articles and we are starting to add everything about him and his disciples in internet. He is a spiritual master of a sect of people following Gaudiya Vaishnav religion in West Bengal, India. And it has been extracted and translated from his biography written in 'Bengali' language, which is available as an offline book. I did not find any mention of supernatural events here. We will keep on editing the article and will be adding requisite references soon. Achyutananda Brahmachari • talk • contribs 16:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding those references will contribute to the stregnth of the article. The supernatural occurences I was refering to are under the subheading "His childhood days and meeting Shrila Prabhupada." It speaks of dreams and miraculous curings.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have started including references, and two of the references have already been mentioned. We will be adding a few more and we request for the removal of the article from 'article for deletion'. He has immense contribution towards women Gaudiya Vaishnav devotees and we request, he be shown minimum request by allowing the article in wikipedia. It is just his biography, that has been translated and extracted from books "Patit pavan Sudha" and "Shrila Prabhujir Jivani" which are offline available books, written in Bengali Language. So it is neither fake, nor written from a fan point of view and is totally neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.52.245.251 (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to allow sourcing. This is entirely unsourced and requires extensive rewriting before it can be used in mainspace but there are assertions that, if supported by sources, would indicate possibility of passing WP:GNG. There would need to be verifiable documentation of scholarly or theological interest from those outside of the article subject's followers, however, to show that. I suggest to the followers obviously working on the article to submit through the Articles for Creation process before restoring to main article space. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Exemplo347 (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WWWX[edit]

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

Unable to establish general notability (WP:GNG) or notability under WP:BCAST. The station's age is not enough to establish notability. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 14:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article lacks significant information and the subject lacks notability. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per BCAST and OUTCOMES. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:54 on May 3, 2017 (UTC)
Keep: There is a presumed notability for most broadcast stations, as long as it is verifiably backed up by reliable sources. I've expanded the article a bit so that it's not just a two-sentence unsourced stub; I can't guarantee that it will definitively save the article (i.e., if it sufficiently establishes any notability WWWX might have), but it's reasonably safe to say that no matter what past outcomes for broadcast station AfDs have suggested about broadcast station notability in general, articles must have sources to survive an AfD. (Furthermore, even WP:BCAST seems to hint that stubs with minimal content — and far too many radio station articles fall under that category — aren't really encouraged at this point. For that reason, I do not feel this justifies a speedy keep based on the criteria; the article had been around as a stub since 2007 with little-to-no sourcing, and had no references at the time of nomination — an article persisting like that for so long is definitely at risk for potential deletion. Indeed, this may be more of a weak keep !vote than I'd prefer to admit…) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I stumbled upon this because this station is in my watchlist. What exactly makes this station different from others in Oshkosh, Wisconsin or anywhere else for that matter? It has an FCC license, and as the previous editor noted should enjoy a degree of notability due to WP:BCAST. It has multiple reliable sources indicating it exists. I am proud of the editors who brought in the 17 references to show this radio station exists. I would go even farther to say it is no longer a stub although I admit I have not seen the difference between when it was a stub and now. It has enough reliable sources. It is notable. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 03:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wcquidditch. Although Neutralhomer is correct that the base notability claims for a radio station are that it has a broadcasting license from the appropriate regulatory authority (FCC, CRTC, Ofcom, etc.) and that it originates at least a part of its programming schedule in its own studios rather than simply operating as a rebroadcaster of another station, Wcquidditch is ultimately most correct about what actually gets a radio station an article: reliable source coverage that properly verifies those things to be true. This was a completely unsourced two-line stub at the time of nomination, but a station is not exempted from having to cite reliable source referencing just because passage of our notability criteria for radio stations has been claimed — so what saves this isn't the statement that it exists, but the significantly improved sourcing and substance that have been added since nomination to improve the article. Bearcat (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per post-nomination rewrites and Bearcat's tour de force argument.A Train^talk 15:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and note to closing admin: !votes posted before the 23:38, 3 May 2017‎ rewrite were for a substantially different article. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Mashraqi[edit]

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

Not at all convinced that discovering a bug is notable enough Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. not a notable figure. couldn't found a mention in reliable sources.. cited sources are blogs except Tribunes story which doesn't mention the subject. --Saqib (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article lacks content and the subject is not notable. Bmbaker88 (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Exemplo347 (talk) 09:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy thriller[edit]

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

The genre does not seems to be fit as it requires to be merged in comedy film or thriller film. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC) SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Genre in widespread use, first used in early 20th Century. Appears in Oxford Dictionary, and multiple websites as a searchable genre. Listed examples are properly sourced. Scr★pIron^IV 15:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a well known and popular genre used in film, television, novels. Neptune's Trident (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ScrapIronIV. MarnetteD|Talk 16:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fairly mainstream sub-genre like Comedy horror and it is even a general category at Allmovie. I get why it was nominated, but we do cover major sub-genres here at Wikipedia. If SuperHero wants to delete film genre clutter from Wikipedia we have a stack of categories that need to go and I'd be happy to point him in the right direction. Betty Logan (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable since Google Books here appears to show the term used in multiple books. Probably would not be a very meaty article, but the coverage exists nonetheless. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete in its current form. If it is indeed a well established term and/or genre, then it should be kept of course. However the current sourcing in the article (3 new york times articles) is by no means sufficient to confirm that. I would at least require the use by different film critics from different outlets as well or better the usage/desccription in scholarly journals or books on film/movies. There is a danger here that terms get established via wikipedia which is something to be avoided here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Looking at the other postings here, i'd like to add that the sources mentioned by ScrapIronIV and Erik seem sufficient, but some of them would need to be verified in detail and integrated into the article. Also a comment on Superhero's rationale for the AfD as it doesn't seem to be valid. Any genre that is established in reputable external sources can have its own article. Even if an overview article handles several genre at once, this entry would still need to exist as redirect at least and with enough content it could always be extended into an article of its own rather than being a paragraph or subsection in an overview article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; merging this to either comedy or thriller wouldn't be appropriate. This is a distinct genre and has received enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. The only thing is that the sources currently present in the article give a weak hint that this might not have been covered significantly. This can be solved by improving the article and adding more content and sources to the page (some are given above). Deletion or merging won't help. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: well established genre. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unbiunium[edit]

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

Elements 119 and 120 will probably have some information revealed on them in the next 5 years, but I doubt that this element will. Having a full article for it will make Wikipedia promote it as something to be excited about for the near future. Georgia guy (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Given the sheer number of sources that are cited for it, and how many of them are more recent (2015 or 2016) than the previous AfD in 2011, I have to wonder if this is a serious nomination. But if your bar is plans to synthesise it; did you not read under the "Attempts at synthesis" section "The team at RIKEN has listed the synthesis of element 121 among their future plans after their attempts to synthesise element 120 in 2017–2018 and element 119 in 2019–2020"? At that rate, even 5 years (to 2022) doesn't look completely out of the question, if they plan to start after 119 and 120. Double sharp (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the links to sources above may be a little problematic because most scientists in the field call this "element 121" and not "unbiunium", so that one would only get unreliable sources searching the latter term. It seems fairly clear that a substantial number of reliable sources exist for this, given the fact that the article currently has 31 references. Double sharp (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Georgia guy: I don't quite understand the nomination. What policy based reason are you giving for deletion? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is NOT supposed to promote stories of the distant future as things to be excited about. Georgia guy (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that's a policy? The closest thing I know of is WP:CRYSTAL, but actually the second point there explicitly calls out new superheavy elements as an example: "Certain scientific extrapolations are considered to be encyclopedic, such as chemical elements documented by IUPAC before isolation in the laboratory, provided that scientists have made significant non-trivial predictions of their properties." I believe the copious text and sources here count as "significant non-trivial predictions" of the likely properties of element 121. Double sharp (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No policy based reason for deletion given. The article has enough sources covering this scientific research. This isn't "promotion" but an article similar to Human mission to Mars --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You might call it "Human mission to Superheavy Island". ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 14:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT 1. We wouldn't keep an article because someone said "this might become notable in the future," so we really can't delete an article because someone says "this will probably never become notable" - it's nonsense. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that has never been notable but that Wikipedia has had an article on for at least 3 years?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that start to get into WP:WAX territory? If such articles do exist or have existed, they would be mistakes, not precedents. Double sharp (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you find articles that have existed for 3 years, with absolutely no sign of notability, please nominate them for deletion. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Georgia guy: I think you're confusing notability with existence. For some unforeseen technical reasons, we may never be able to produce Unbiunium. However we still would have an article on it as the theory behind it and attempts to produce it have been covered by reliable secondary sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: the subject is clearly notable. Porphyro (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ntelabi[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Sources used in the article are music or video download site, social sites or other self published sources.Mar11 (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well cited article with strong references. Close this talk. AlikotoSam (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2017 (GMT) — AlikotoSam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Which one of the references you think is Strong? - Mar11 (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those from ghanaweb.com and modernghana.com. Check and see.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AlikotoSam (talk • contribs) 19:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the modernghana reference [6] nor any of the ghanaweb references [7], [8], [9] in the article mentions Ntelabi. If he is in there under a different name, it is a trivial mention, nohing that approaches significant coverage. --bonadea contributions talk 19:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there has been a name change of a sort from Drilix to Ntelabi. Is there a way this could be rectified other than deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlikotoSam (talk • contribs) 20:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the four ghanaweb/modernghana sources again, one is irrelevant since it's there as a reference for another person; the three remaining sources consist of two trivial mentions (mentioning Ntelabi/Drilix in a list of people) and one review that seems to be more substantial, until we look at the source for the review. Ill Haven Records is Ntelabi's own record label, so that is a review written by himself (or somebody working for the label). Sorry, but notability just is not shown, yet. Once he becomes notable enough, somebody who is not afiliated with him will probably create an article about him. --bonadea contributions talk 09:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to the above: the review has been published in a few different places, and this modernghana link reveals that it's Ntelebi's manager who is the author of the review. That means it is a primary source, and those never count towards notability. --bonadea contributions talk 08:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about the other references? Are they all irrelevant now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlikotoSam (talk • contribs) 18:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article doesn't meet WP:N. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NMUSIC nor WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 19:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing but trivial mentions. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, failing WP:NMUSIC. Ifnord (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's make this easy on the closer. Kick back to Draft with a time limit of months to improve. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It looks like deleting would be easier on the closer, because there is clear consensus to delete. I concur with the other votes, this fails notability criteria. Waggie (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Krown Hospital[edit]

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

promotional material about a non-notable hospital. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 12:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 12:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article provides some historical information, but the subject is not notable. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: only a spilt bedpan away from being WP:G11, and that's on top of the only reliable sources being ...none, the nomination is a good one. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Article appears as though it was created for the aim of promotion of business and as per WP:NOTHERE my !vote! is justified.Celestina007 (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete unsourced advertising brochure. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously non-notable advertising is obvious. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Lyric[edit]

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

Musician with a single release of little notability. His prior career as an event promoter does not appear to have garnered any notice either. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. - Mar11 (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the write-up from The Source referenced in the article is a decent start, but I'm not finding other sources to demonstrate sufficient coverage to warrant an article. Gongshow talk 21:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If more content and sources were added to this article, then I think it could be saved. Otherwise it should be deleted because it lacks credible sources. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A clear consensus to delete amongst the non-sock puppets. I'll also have a look at Seismic architecture. A Train^talk 15:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Mentor Llunji[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO Kleuske (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should keep the article about Mentor Llunji because it is directly related to the article Seismic architecture, being the only author worldwide who has written extensively about this topic (three books). People interested in Seismic architecture probably want to no more about him. It is the same situation as if in the article about theory of relativity we don't put nothing about its author?!MSPROJECTBUREAU (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSPROJECTBUREAU (talk • contribs) 15:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if Wikipedia is being treated as yet another social media outlet. Almost all mentions of this topic are on social networking, user generated content, or marketing sites. So I see nothing to suggest that Independent people have written on this person. That is it is not notable. If it is really relevant to Seismic architecture, then a redirect there is a good idea instead of an article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, redirect is good idea. Tensinet (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in independent WP:RS. Most references available are, as mentioned above, social media or self-cites. The proposed redirect target, Seismic architecture is by same article creator and is mostly about the ideas in this subject's book. Notability is not inherited in either direction, after all. The more general article is Earthquake engineering (or possibly Building science#Earthquake/seismic design) but redirect would presume that this article subject is influential in that field. Other than the one book I can't find any evidence that would qualify under WP:ACADEMIC to show this subject has had significant influence on the field. This appears to be a younger academic, so WP:TOOSOON may also apply. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eggishorn, when you propose something you should have basic knowledge on the topic that you proposes.Be at least architect or engineer. General article Earthquake engineering has nothing to do with new trends in architecture named Seismic architecture.It is something very new and unique in architecture and earthquake engineering..There are only few books about this, because very few people can write in the same time about architecture and earthquakes , two very opposite topics.Its is not about the author, and coverage of his work, but to cover as much as possible this topic for possible readers.I have created this page, and already deleted,because there is no purpose of commenting further this topic with non-professionals.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tensinet (talk • contribs) 04:54, May 9, 2017 (UTC)Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tensinet:, please see this essay about arguments to avoid. There is no requirement for professional qualifications to edit, or comment on the edits of others, in Wikipedia. Furthermore, claimed possession of professional requirements does not absolve anyone from the notability criteria. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly does not meet WP:GNG (as shown quite ably by the above editors), WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:NSCHOLAR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Twelve Colonies. MBisanz ^talk 12:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of the Twelve Colonies[edit]

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

Minor fictional element with no real-world significance, all sources are limited to plot summaries and other in-universe mentions. I am not proposing a merger to Twelve Colonies because I doubt that topic has stand alone notability, either. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's just a plot element. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable plot element. SL93 (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article lacks sources. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Twelve Colonies. Artw (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Artw and WP:ATD. No reason for deletion rather than merging has been articulated. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Except the fact that as I noted, TC article has dubuous notability itself. Sure, merge - but why bother if it is going to be deleted? (Granted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twelve Colonies (2nd nomination) is ongoing, but the it is hardly a consensus for keeping...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's not really a consensus for deleting either though, FWIW. Artw (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Twelve Colonies, or with whatever article the Twelve Colonies will be merged with, like a hypothetical Fictional universe of Battlestar Galactica article (see here for the idea). — NickTheRed37 (0x54 · 0x43) 16:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per NickTheRed37. A potentially useful redirect with some usable content however the relevant articles end up structured. Deletion is not necessary in this case. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three Mothers Art Gallery cum Museum[edit]

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

A Google Books search turns up one Facebook page and some kind of bucket list. A Google News search turns up what looks like a single trivial mention at tripadvisor.com. Existence ≠ Notability, and even the evidence for existence is thin. Article has no references and none are available through any foreign language wiki. Article needs evidence of being the subject of non-trivial discussion in multiple reliable independent verifiable sources, and I could not identify any of these for this subject. KDS4444 (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Museums have to pass notability too to have dedicated pages. At best, in the current state, this may warrant a mention in the list of museums or other cultural landmarks in the page about the city it is in. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Cum museum?" Edison (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cum is the Latin word for "with." In this case it would have been easier to say "Gallery and Museum." • Gene93k (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment'Cum' is a Indian cliche for 'and' .I think the article is being tag bombed .I mean even if the subject is non-notable a simple advert template a deletion notice and a orphan template would suffice FORCE RADICAL (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From the address and description, I believe the correct name is Three Mothers Art Gallery, since appending "cum Gallery" produces significantly less Google search results. However, even those results (mostly from TripAdvisor and other travel websites) don't seem to meet WP:V. Also, I couldn't find a single source that supported the content past the first line. I'm pretty sure the location exists, but I don't think it warrants an article here. ~ KN2731 {talk} 11:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable local gallery. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SerpLogic[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Despite claims to the contrary that I removed, the company has not been the subject of any significant media coverage; the best we have is the founder being quoted on SEO, not a discussion of the company itself. Huon (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Huon There is not enough in depth coverage. The best I could find was an aditional source with some coverage on the company ( http://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/16/154045.html ), but is mostly about its SEO recomendations and not much about the company itself. It may help, but is not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. --Rogerx2 (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Fails WP:GNG. And WP:CORP. (Is interesting to note the series of edits leading to the article's creation. Though perhaps coincidental, they look similar to patterns typically seen in cases of paid-editing. In which a user account is created, the account makes a series of otherwise unrelated/innocuous edits, waits a few weeks, is marked autoconfirmed, and then makes paid-for edits). Ignoring the means of the article's creation however, the subject of the article's content still fails the expected inclusion criteria. No value to the project in retaining. Only value is to the subject SEO-company's SEO rankings. Guliolopez (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article lacks notable content and sources. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:CORP. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antichrist (Malayalam film)[edit]

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

Shelved movie. Fails WP:NFF. Page was created recently by a sockpuppet, even though it was quite obvious that the movie never went beyond the planning stages, and was shelved in 2014. Jupitus Smart 08:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And if it was a sock recreation, this can be a speedy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this is a sock recreation (it could very well be), but more of an article created to come off as a proper editor while creating COI pages on the side. But it still seems stupid as to why he chose an extinct movie for that.Jupitus Smart 19:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article lacks content. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Looked like a copy vio as well as utter rubbish. http://www.ebay.com/itm/28-11-NEW-WHAT-IS-KYARA-SCIENTIFICALLY-ANSWERED-ALOES-AGAR-WOOD-KYNAM-QINAM-/282311289648 Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyara[edit]

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

Absolute nonsense Boleyn (talk) 06:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as it was in 2007. Although seemingly pointless and almost incomprehensible, it's probably not quite nonsense as G1 defines it; and a more erudite nomination would be welcome. No idea why the nom felt the need to unreview the article either. But, when all's said and done, this is a sound nomination. Nuke from orbit. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once reviewed, it's eligible for indexing by Google, and so can be deleted from Wikipedia, but article would still be likely to come up pretty high if someone googles it. Boleyn (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Healthcare Infection Society[edit]

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

Previous CSD-A7 was declined. Fails to meet WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has no significant content and lacks credible sources. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails CORP. Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage that confirms mere existence is not a credible claim of significance, despite the numerous misguided essays that say that it is. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Cathcart[edit]

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

Ghits provide no reliable, in-depth independent sources to corroborate notability per WP:NACTOR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an actress in her early teens with no reliable sources. She might at some point become notable, but is not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Yash^talk stalk 07:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Afua Richardson[edit]

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

DePRODed by author without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: Research has not revealed any independent, reliable in-depth sources to establish notability per WP:CREATIVE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Research has revealed some independent, reliable in-depth sources which establish notability. Andrew D. (talk) 08:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For this vote to be valid, Andrew Davidson, you would need to list those sources, and preferably add them to the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its wording was copied from the nomination. Please see WP:SAUCE. Andrew D. (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see any reliable substantial sources. The Comics Alliance article is an interview where she says whatever she wants to, andeven the interviewer says she is " a female comics pro on the ascendance."./ Phrase like "on the ascendance" translate as "Not Yet Notable.". The other references are mere mentions or a link to a picture of her work. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update of Sources. I have added five new sources, replaced two others, and removed the source that DGG questioned. Shaneomatic ( talk) 21:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shaneomatic, these are still only links to projects the subject has worked on. None of the cited sources are dedicated, in-depth coverage of the subject herself. Still fails to meet notability criteria at WP:CREATIVE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete links showing that the subject is creating comics works are not enough to show notability. We need links to articles about the subject, and these are lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found articles about her as a person and some reviews of her work. Added them to the article. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked out the links that were added. Still none of them are more than websites that just happen to have the words 'Afua Richardson}' in them. 2,000 such sources wouldn't make this article pass our notability guidelines. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Those websites don't just happen to have the words of the subject's name as some sort of internet scrabble. For example, the most recent source added by Megalibrarygirl was a review which specifically discusses the artist's work and style. It's not all that lengthy -- about a paragraph -- but many such sources do constitute notability per WP:ANYBIO which states, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". The search links above indicate that there are thousands of sources about this person and, as she has an unusual name, we may be fairly sure that they are about this person. A casual skim of such searches is not sufficient to conclude that they are all invalid and the nay-sayers don't seem to have done more than this; they certainly present no evidence. For example, because it's deep in the search lists, no-one else seems to have yet reached the coverage in The Guardian. This leads with an example of the artist's work and makes a clear claim of significance, "Afua Richardson, one of the few African American artists working for the big companies such as Marvel (she’s actually African Native American, and the recipient of a Nina Simone Artistic Achievement award for her comics work...". Again, this source isn't lengthy but it certainly contributes to her notability. Andrew D. (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An award-winning artist in her field.--Ipigott (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, award-winning artist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the article appears today, the subject seems to be notable. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, award-winning artist. GNG met. Hmlarson (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - A search for the award she won returns 8 results, and they're all about this artist, not the award. I don't think this one-time award conveys any notability to its recipient. Pinging editors who cited the award when they !voted keep. User:Ipigott, User:Pigsonthewing, User:Hmlarson. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki article is about the artist, not the award. Thanks. Hmlarson (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hmlarson: Yes, and your rationale for keeping this artist's article was "award-winning artist". Per Wikipedia:Notability (people), "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" (emphasis mine). That's not the case here. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline I cited was WP:GNG. Thanks! Hmlarson (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hmlarson: You said "notable, award-winning artist. GNG met". Since the "award-winning" part amounts to nothing, and she has provided interior art for exactly 2 comic books. The first 11 sources prove existence of her work only. Please explain to me how GNG is met. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SATISFY. Hmlarson (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Clearly notable. I think you've mistaken my willingness to be persuaded otherwise with badgering. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although I agree with Hmlarson's last comment, I think there must be something wrong with Argento Surfer's Google search setup. I immediately found [10].--Ipigott (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Apparently the award she won is called simply the Nina Simone Award, not the Nina Simone Artistic Achievement Award. I have revised my vote to Keep. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A great example of an AfD having the side effect of bringing out the best in the community, hunting down sources and expanding the article such that it now meets WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miks C-Kellman[edit]

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

DePRODed by author without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: None of the sources are actually about Kellman. Fleeting mentions and primary sources. In fact this bio is largely promotional in tone and apart from being a kind of CV, does not demonstrate any true significance or importance to pass notability criteria for biographies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are about Kellman! The issue is that most of the sources available are in Latvian or local Indian languages as most of his work is produced in those languages, but it is no doubt, he has impacted the lives of million young people across Europe and India. I think it does align perfectly with the rules and regulations of the living persons bios of Wiki. The references listed are about Mr. Kellman, the interviews, the reports and news articles. Rachelberkeley (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. I agree, the article does fit the regulations of the living persons bios of Wiki. I am also working on adding new references/sources to the page. There are a lot of evident and reliable resources of Kellman online and on books. Specifically about his work within the youth sector. Veenawomen (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have double checked the sources, all sources are mainly about Kellman and his work, therefore I disagree with the concern raised by Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. Some sources are also available in Latvian and I would propose Rachelberkeley to create a Latvian version of Kellman's page also, a lot of information/sources are in Latvian. This page is useful and should be maintained and kept.Veenawomen (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Rachelberkeley and Veenawomen are Confirmed sock puppets.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo WP:NOT for many reasons typified by namedrop images (cf WP:NOTINHERITED). BLP sourcing is weak. Widefox; talk 12:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically puffery. The refs are unsubstantial, just as the nominator says. I would have considered this for a G11 speedy, DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boom-A-Rang[edit]

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

look like its for marketing India1277 (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication that either restaurant is notable. Coverage is typical of unremarkable, non-notable restaurants. (I'm not sure where the idea of putting two non-notable subjects into one article came from. For the record: No, don't do that.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article lacks significant content and the subject is not notable. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and should have been speedy deleted as the article is nonsense. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Payback (loyalty card)[edit]

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

Original PROD tag: WP:PROMO & no independent sourcing. Tagged for notability since 2008; has been a subject of COI / copyvio editing.

There is (literally) only one source: a press release from American Express announcing that it's acquired this company. I'd probably just redirect to the AmEx article, except that there's nothing there to redirect TO. Calton | Talk 04:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT a promo; strictly advertorial content and unsourced original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most sources are press releases or other promotional literature. A few passing references but nothing substantial or in-depth.Glendoremus (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is a promotional piece. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying that this is a good article but it's also not a promo piece. The Big Brother Award is a negative thing. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 14:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Poonen[edit]

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

Non-notable business person. A Google search indicates that this person exists, and comes up with the usual vanity hits. Article is promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, likely self-created given the kind of information and photos added; editor has repeatedly added non-encyclopaedic content and sourced to linked in and Facebook. Melcous (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite heroic effort by article creators, the subject is NN and the sources do not meet requirements for significant coverage. Possible self-promotion or otherwise. Creators have not been very forthcoming. Dloh cierekim 01:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have again reviewed sourcing. Although sourcing has improved in number, the 3rd party coverage does not go into significant depth about the subject. Passing references here and there. The bulk of sourcing is still from sources connected with the subject. Dloh cierekim 22:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One of the authors asked me on my talk page what part of the article would need to be cleaned up so that the article would no longer be subject to deletion. In my experience, that question (what can be removed to make the article acceptable) is typically asked about a promotional article by a conflict of interest author, who is desperate to get an article, typically about their employer, accepted, either to avoid speedy deletion, or in AFC. No amount of cleanup will make a non-notable person notable (and removal of promotional content from a spam article will leave nothing). If the authors cannot add to the article to make the subject notable, no amount of subtraction will help. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I dispute that this person is not notable. The person this article is about, is COO of the 5th largest software companies in the world, and has had a fair amount of news around him. Much of the criteria on notability applies to him - making him notable. There will always be debate among some who think he is notable, and others who think he isn't. There are others in similar type of business COO roles B. Kevin Turner that are just as notable. Further, there are over 20 references listed on the person, and there is nothing in the subsequent community edits of the article that are peacock self-promotional. I have seen other Wikipedia pages that are worse. They all point to legitimate articles, written by legitimate journalists in Fortune, Business Insider, that have been written about the person.User:twinpeaks1900 May 1, 2017— twinpeaks1900 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dloh cierekim 10:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : definitely support keeping this page, as the person is notable and the sources cited are credible and reliable journals Dynamitecotton 02:30, 2 May 2017 — Dynamitecotton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dloh cierekim 10:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment have reviewed added sourcing since my post and maintain my position that there is insufficient depth of coverage. Mostly from corporate website and social media or PR fluff. Dloh cierekim 11:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note that there has been a WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Whisperwire. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only Keep votes have been blocked as sockpuppets. The AFD should continue because this is not a case for G5, as the article was created prior to the sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep i am not a sockpuppet of the editors of the article, so don't dismiss feedback just because you think anyone who provides positive input is engaging in sockpuppetry. i have reviewed the article. it seems there are 2 issues at debate here. is the person Sanjay Poonen notable? the answer is yes, by the criteria that wikipedia lays out for notability, and comparison to others like him who are notable in their inustry (that one of the other editors was trying to make before someone struck out their feedback). second question is, are the sources all social media, ie facebook, twitter, linkedin. over 90% of the sources cited are credible journals or magazines, so this article is not just "pr fluff," as one of the critics suggests. so i vote to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophermaxim (talk • contribs) 21:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Christophermaxim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dloh cierekim 22:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— yes, i am a new contributor to wikipedia, and yes there is always a first date to start contributing to wikipedia, i am not an editor on this article, i just reviewed it. hopefully i will contribute to other wikipedia topics over time. dear User:Dlohcierekim stop intimidating new editors who join wikipedia from contributing to articles, it is supposed to be an open platform. don't attack the new editors, just debate the issues here - which are notability (the person is notable), and your accusation that the cited sources are all social media fluff (also not true).

Okay. Let's see. User:Christophermaxim has made three edits, all of which are to content this AFD. So far, so good. Articles for Deletion is one of the less visible and more arcane features of Wikipedia, and is not the first place that a new editor will normally turn. The idea that Christophermaxim simply decided to edit Wikipedia and simply happened to come to this particular contentious AFD, which has a history of sockpuppetry and may involve conflict of interest, and simply happened to show up to say that this article, and no other article, should not be deleted, is incredible in that it is not worthy of belief by a reasoning H. sapiens, and one editor should be one H. sapiens (in fact, on this AFD, editors were blocked for not each being a different hominid). Since we have the word of Christophermaxim that they are a new editor, and not a sockpuppet, the most reasonable explanation is either that they were recruited for this purpose (they didn't say that they weren't) or that they were registered and not editing (lurking or sleeping) for a long time until they were needed by Poonen or his employer. Okay. They are not a sockpuppet, and my own opinion is that the guideline on meatpuppetry is incomprehensibly vague, so they were canvassed in some way. Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Christophermaxim - User:Dlohcierekim was not intimidating new users, but was commenting on facts. Two of the previous editors are sockpuppets, and you have made no edits outside the area. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— still vote keep. ok, granted i am new to wikipedia, so i don't know what the heck the term "meat-puppet" means (i personally find that term derogatory for an "open" environment like wikipedia). i am not a meat-puppet, nor I’m a vegetarian-puppet, nor am I any kind of puppet. maybe others who are making the accusations are sockpuppets or meat-puppets themselves. anyway i prefer not to call people by terms and names, just debate the issues. so, i come back to the core 2 issues being debated here. is this article about someone who is notable? and secondly, are the sources fluffy? i have reviewed this article once again, and all the sources. except for maybe 1-2, all the sources are credible and journalistic professional, not fluffy. and yes, the person is notable, based on all the criteria i can find that wikipedia lays out for notability, plus comparison to others like him who are notable in their industry. we should keep the debate focused on these 2 issues, not digress to name calling --User:Christophermaxim —Preceding undated comment added 04:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Christophermaxim - Maybe my point wasn't clear. I wasn't name-calling. I don't know what a meatpuppet is either, and so I wasn't calling anyone a meatpuppet. I said that the rule about meatpuppets is incomprehensible, and so I won't refer to anyone as a meatpuppet. However, the concept of single-purpose accounts is clear, and a non-notable person is a non-notable person, even if single-purpose accounts defend them. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Christophermaxim hasn't made any other edits except about this article, and so clearly isn't just a new account who happened to come this way first. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject is not notable. Christopher Maxim, everyone can see through your facade. You are clearly a meat-puppet. You didn't randomly decide to begin your editing career on this page. Lepricavark (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know whether Christophermaxim is a meatpuppet because I don't know what a meatpuppet is, and find the guideline on meatpuppetry to be incomprehensible. But I do know what a single-purpose account is. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that this subject passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PSPK25[edit]

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

No reason was given for the removal of the PROD tag by this article's author, and the concern hasn't been addressed: after about a month, it still has no references. KSFT ^(t|c) 03:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Unsourced per WP:NFF. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 03:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is ineligible for speedy deletion, because a tag was removed, which is why I started this AFD. KSFT ^(t|c) 22:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON with supposed release date 8/2017. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jukjeon-dong, Yongin. MBisanz ^talk 12:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daehyeon Elementary School[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. elementary schools are not inherently notable. the korean version of this article only has 1 source LibStar (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:ORG. Could also be redirected per regrettable common practice to an article about the locality or local school system to discourage well-meaning recreation of the article. Edison (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons outlined above. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable elementary school per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article lacks content and the school is not notable. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This vote does not cite an applicable policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jukjeon-dong, Yongin and tag with r from school. The practice has two reasons: it would normally be children searching, so you want to give them something they recognize to read. Second reason: it will normally be children searching so they are much less likely to realize that it has been deleted and shouldn't be recreated again, so we take away that temptation by adding a redirect as a placeholder. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 21:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jukjeon-dong, Yongin and tag with r from school. Jukjeon-dong. Anchored in policy at WP:ATD-R, for non toxic articles redirect is preferred to outright deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After being relisted twice, and multiple references mentioned during the discussion, no consensus to delete nor keep has been reached. (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism International[edit]

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

An advertorially toned articles on an event that lacks coverage that discuss the topic directly and in detail. A 2014 AfD closed as "keep" due to low participation and some sources being presented.

I reviewed the sources at the AfD and in the article, and I'm not convinced that they meet WP:CORPDEPTH, for example, one being titled "Miss Tourism International to Promote Malaysia" (which speaks of the promotional intent). Two+ years on, it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only the Straits Times offers any sort of prospect of notability. The other two refs are internal to the Pageant business. The Straits Times report dates from 2002 and simply reports the upcoming pageant. Agree with nom, very far from WP:CORPDEPTH. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Below are some sources. More sources in addition to these examples are available. Since notability assessments thus far appear to be only based upon sources in the article and a previous AfD discussion, see WP:NEXIST regarding this matter. Regarding the article itself, it does not have a particularly promotional tone, and it is formatted in the manner of many pageant articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

New Straits Times
Daily News
The Organization of Asia-Pacific News Agencies
Kiwi beauty wears the crown. The Star
Malaysian beauty crowned Miss Tourism International 2011. The Borneo Post
Malaysia hosts Miss Tourism International final. Sin Chew Daily
Miss Tourism Int’l winner, runner-up in Vietnam for 2015 edition. Tuổi Trẻ
Indonesia takes home four awards from Miss Tourism International 2016. The Jakarta Post
Miss Philippines Wins Miss Tourism International 2013/2014 Award. Malaysian Digest
Dikna Sambar 4 Gelar Miss Tourism International 2016 di Putrajaya. Tribun news
Beauty queens make an appearance at Sogo. The Sun
Philippines bags Miss Tourism International crown. Rappler
Miss Tourism Int’l: I thought I was dreaming. Philippine Daily Inquirer
Miss Tourism Int'l 2016 journey ends for PH bet. Rappler
Angeli Gomez: Miss Tourism crown helps me do more good. Philippine Daily Inquirer
SD fails to shine at miss tourism international. Times of Swaziland
Viet Nam to host Miss Tourism International. Việt Nam News
Vietnam to host Miss Tourism International 2015. Thanh Niên
Double triumph for Miss Tourism International Singapore. AsiaOne
60 finalis Miss Tourism International 2016 lawat KLIA. BH Online
Filipina tops New Year's Eve beauty tilt in Malaysia. GMA News.
Phạm Thùy Linh nhận giải Trang phục truyền thống tại Miss Tourism International 2016. Thanh Niên
Beauty queens light up i-City. The Star
Cerita Wakil RI Raih 4 Gelar di Miss Tourism International. Viva
Miss Tourism International 2016 lawat KLIA. Harian Metro
Dikna Bakal Tampil di Miss Tourism International 2016. Tempo
Dikna Sambar 4 Gelar Miss Tourism International 2016. Kedaulatan Rakyat
Philippines wins 2013 Miss Tourism International. Manila Bulletin January 2, 2014. ^{[dead link]}

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I consider it appropriate to have a single article like this--but of course not articles on the individual years. I've removed a section that was promotional for the 2002 event DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and improve the main article. Smerge what's useful from the others. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the coverage offered above is routine, and confirms that the pageant exists. However, this is not true secondary coverage -- there's no transformative analysis, just routine beauty pageant blotter, as in: "icity visit organised as part of pageants efforts to promote tourism"; Filipina tops New Year's Eve beauty tilt in Malaysia; etc. Such information can easily found on the org's web site. With a few exceptions, the winners are non notable so this article fails as a list as well. Fancruft / listcruft / statistics -- I don't see anything encyclopedically relevant here. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just another pagent business trying to make money. Nothing notable beyond press release generated coverage. Fails CorpDepth guidelines for me. Legacypac (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ansh 666 19:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indraneel Bhattacharya[edit]

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

Kellymoat (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – No reason for delete has been offered – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My finger hit "enter" when it shouldn't have, therefore no info was offered. BUT, I often get criticized for my nomination reasons, even though most of the articles I nominate do get deleted. So, really, why bother writing a reason. I may not be able to explain the reasons using proper WP "code words", but the nominations are valid. Kellymoat (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No grounds asserted for notability meeting WP:BIO. Bhattacharya's article looks like an advertisement & promotion of him. Looks like a paid article of a person, who has done lot of PR online, but didn't received any significant awards/recognition - WP:Notability. Seems a low-profile actor from India but not notable. Vinay089 (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I worked on article and have improved it by adding more information and cited with news references. Passes GNG.--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though the subject hasn't played the leading character in his films yet his supporting roles are significant enough and not minor appearances. His film and TV acting has received significant coverage in reliable sources like The Times of India and International Business Times. Winning an award isn't a WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR criterion. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Urmston. MBisanz ^talk 12:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abbotsford Preparatory School[edit]

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

I found no notability for this school. SL93 (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. lower level schools do not have inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it fails WP:ORG and as LibStar says there is no inherent notability for elementary schools. To discourage re-creation of the article, it might be replaced by a redirect to the locality. Edison (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article lacks significant content and the subject lacks notability. Bmbaker88 (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Urmston and tag with r from school. The practice has two reasons: it would normally be children searching, so you want to give them something they recognize to read. Second reason: it will normally be children searching so they are much less likely to realize that it has been deleted and shouldn't be recreated again, so we take away that temptation by adding a redirect as a placeholder. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Steppenwolf discography#Compilation albums. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ABC Collection[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Steppenwolf discography#Compilation albums. I can't find significant coverage for this release to warrant a standalone article, but redirects are cheap and it's a plausible search term. Gongshow talk 21:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I'm not sure it will be a very common search term but it is not a difficult task to accomplish since it does not warrant an independent article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Gongshow. Compilation albums are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist — they can still sometimes clear WP:NALBUMS on the same criteria as a studio album (e.g. a greatest hits album released while the band is still active, and thus typically contains one or two new or previously unreleased songs as extra sales bait), but they're not given an automatic freebie just because the band has an article. It's a plausible enough search term that it should indeed be kept in place as a redirect to the discography, but the depth of reliable source coverage needed to make it notable just isn't there. Bearcat (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Steppenwolf discography#Compilation albums as a plausible search term. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yahel Chirinian[edit]

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

apparent COI autobiography/resume sourced to LinkedIn/Youtube/Vimeo/etc. All sources appear to be non-independent or social media. WP:BEFORE finds no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources(the Huffington Post article is actually a hosted blog) nor verifiable information to pass WP:NARTIST. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A textbook vanity article prior to tonight's clean up. There are some mentions in publications, but I haven't found significant coverage. 2601:188:1:AEA0:C916:D06E:BD60:82B4 (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; This is insufficient to indicate significant notability to pass WP:ANYBIO. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 05:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete oer FIM. The sources available are utterly unimpressive and don't come near to meeting any of our inclusion guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient assertion of notability. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 16:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Manslaughter (United States law). MBisanz ^talk 12:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntary manslaughter laws in the United States[edit]

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

While I can see the importance of this article. I think it should either be merged or redirected to another article. All I see here is a list nothing more. Reb1981 (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~; I'm not an expert but I'm pretty sure the legal literature exists to write something about this topic, including a comparison of different states' statutes. A quick Google Books search brings up promising results, including, for example, one on whether the various states consider a fetus a person for the purposes of voluntary manslaughter and one discussing whether the states still adhere to the common law "sudden passion" formula in defining voluntary manslaughter. If the author, Lethalninja, agrees, turning the page into a draft for now to allow more time for improvement may be a good compromise. Huon (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Manslaughter (United States law), thanks to SmokeyJoe for finding that. A much better example of what such a "X crime in US law" article should look like though it still could be improved based on secondary sources instead of just the various laws themselves. Huon (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Manslaughter (United States law). WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Even if there is a secondary source discussing the suite of US voluntary manslaughter laws, the first place it should go is the target article. A very premature spinout. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete expert in criminal law here. Article is significantly lacking, no mention of legal standard, only the punishment. --JumpLike23 (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless someone can include more information about the legal standard and add sources, this article should be deleted. Bmbaker88 (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michèle Audette[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an activist and unsuccessful political candidate, which isn't making or properly sourcing a genuinely strong claim of notability. There are claims here ("She was president of the Quebec Native Women (FAQ), then Canada's Aboriginal Women (NWAC).") that could get her an article if that was where the WP:WEIGHT of substance and sourcing were actually being placed, but this, as written, is fundamentally a campaign brochure about a political candidate, which just glancingly résumés her prior career background by listing jobs she happened to hold but failing to delve into any substance about anything she did in those jobs -- there's actually more substance here about her mother's activism than there is about hers, and the strongest GNG-worthy source in the entire article is just being used to support the name of her husband rather than any content that would actually be relevant to determining whether she passed a notability standard or not. Basically, this is a nuke and pave situation -- even if she can be shown as having sufficient notability as an activist, this article as written and sourced is not what it takes to get her there. Bearcat (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearly notable. Before nominating the article, sources should have been searched for and added to the article. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looking at those articles in the link above, easily meets WP:GNG. Looks like a failure of WP:BEFORE. Nfitz (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, president of the Native Women's Association of Canada; WP:GNG satisfied; election not really given undue attention, discounting the table, and if it were, Template:Sofixit would apply. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a failed candidate for office does not erase your existing notability. Audette meets WP:GNG and has been covered in-depth for her work. AusLondonder (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a great deal of information on her - radio interviews, press. She is solidly notable and meets WP:GNG Netherzone (talk) 02:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment interesting that you should nominate this article, but not Khalil Ramal. could it be that there is some bias, in your targets of deletion? what standard of press coverage do you have, if any? Beatley (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Ramal is an MLA, and the bright line in the notability standards makes it clear that he'd be a keep. Audette is a keep based on WP:GNG but there is no bright line. Nfitz (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Khalil Ramal holds elected office, and so his notability is not up for any debate at all. Non-winning candidates are not extended the same automatic presumption of notability that the winners get — what has to be shown to make Audette notable enough for a Wikipedia article is a depth of press coverage about her activism that certainly may exist but wasn't shown in the article as written. Bearcat (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If adequate sources exist but are not in the articlem there is no basis for a nomination. Surely have been found them when you did a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search. Nfitz (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG clearly met. Hmlarson (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ded (band). (non-admin closure) f e minist 07:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Everything (song)[edit]

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

Not yet notable. No coverage in reliable sources. Charting does not mean automatic notability. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to Ded (band) . --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirect to Ded (band) . Not a notable page yet. Daerl (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant to Ded (band). Poor title for a redirect. Deleting this and altering the hatnote at Anti-Everything to point to the band will suffice. --Michig (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe that the article history should be kept per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that this material should be somewhere. If a merge is desired still, please open a discussion on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 19:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn food[edit]

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

Fad. Hardly a new thing to colour food, is it? Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (express) 19:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most definitely a fad, but it remains to be seen if a passing one. The article cites both the NYT and BBC describing this particular style of food preparation. The success of the recent Starbucks Unicorn Frappuccino goes a long way to show that this fad may not be fleeting. I doubt this article will ever become extensive, but as Unicorn food definitively exists, I believe the Wikipedia article should not be deleted. SamHolt6 20:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep While this article is incomplete, the trend existed long before the starbucks drink and is widespread enough for WP:Notability. --ZarosFlok (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to either Food coloring or Food presentation. I find it relevant that all three of the article's sources were published within a day of each other earlier this month. This makes WP:NOTNEO a valid reason for deletion. But, the existence of the trend might be a useful addition to the article on Food Coloring. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC) amended by NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Equine nutrition :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - we don't have articles on "galaxy food" or any other "whoohoo, look at this fun colouring!" fads that have happened in the last few years. This popped up due to a particular drink, and will die again once the next foodie "trend" comes along. As for my !vote - I'm leaning towards delete on this one because I can't see it being merged easily into food coloring. However, it could be placed as a section in Food presentation. NewYorkActuary, thoughts on this? Primefac (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac Thanks for asking. There's so little material here that it might usefully be merged into either article, and I'm indifferent as to which one is used (or whether the material ends up in both articles). I'll amend my recommendation to reflect this. As for the two comments immediately below, the New York Times source does indeed mention earlier coverage -- by pointing us to an article in Vogue that was published two days earlier. And the author of the ManRepeller piece notes that they first heard the term from the Instagram postings of a person who is writing a cookbook of that title -- a book not slated to be published until 2018. I think we are very much in WP:NEOLOGISM territory. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and I can't quite believe I'm saying that). The links in the article do provide evidence that this is a trend that has existed prior to Starbucks' (in)famous drink. The article could do with expansion to incorporate more of this history, but that's never a reason to delete it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although most of the coverage it has is because of the Starbucks drink, Unicorn food existed before then and did have coverage before then, thus this is not a one time thing. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 19:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Food presentation this title actually reminded me of "reindeer food" we would make as kids with glitter and oatmeal for Rudolph, then I realized it was about the Starbucks thing (and related fads). Just because it has happened more than once doesn't mean it is notable for Wikipedia's purposes. Things like this come up and go, but it doesn't mean it has lasting significance like we want for notability. A redirect will keep the page history and allow us to merge what is appropriate. If this becomes more notable over time, we can then restore it with no fuss. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Food presentation. Not every fad needs an article if it fits perfectly well into an existing one. Sandstein 17:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 NASCAR Xfinity Series[edit]

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

2017 season has not yet finished Yellowcat5 (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the season hasn't started yet, there is a good amount of information available about it from the looks of it. While it certainly is missing a lot of information, and it certainly needs a lot of work, it seems to be a good start to an article for next season. bojo | talk 21:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article may be worth keeping if someone is willing to add the missing information and sources. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because even though the 2017 season hasn't concluded yet, the beginnings of the 2018 season are already known and will be expanded upon. FallRiverTyler (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE TO EVERYONE SAYING KEEP: I have been trying to mark this talk page as over and passed, but something is going on where it won't let me. If anyone could help out, that would be ideal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowcat5 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After being relisted twice, and multiple sources existing, no consensus has been reached. (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Varun Agarwal[edit]

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

No grounds asserted for notability meeting WP:BIO. Agarwal's article looks like an advertisement & promotion page of the person and his brands, who has done lots of PR online and not received any significant awards/recognition - WP:Notability. Seems a good PR person from India rather than entrepreneur and not notable. Vinay089 (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Significant media coverage from mainstream media houses, clearly makes him pass WP:notability guidelines,GNG.

ATTENTION: I just checked the history of user User:Vinay089, who merely have any positive contribution to Wikipedia. This account seems to be sock, and created solely with purpose of deleting notable articles. (The account Vinay089 is under sockpupet investigation, Here) He nominates the article for deletion even without informing the creator of page (He doesn't leave notification on talk page). The user merely aware about Wikipedia's policy. One more important thing which should be consider, he nominates the article and copy paste same reason in every in each and every AFD. You may check the list of article he nominated and the given reason.--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the SPI was rejected and the topic's notability is a separate issue from the nominator. Frequent nomination of similar articles with similar, or even exactly the same, arguments have no bearing on article subject notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough news media coverage. Kvs90bc (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite promotional tone, the coverage in The Hindu, India Times and India Today is all significant and (unless anyone can refute those articles in particular) and in WP:RS. Passes WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. promotional tone + borderline notability should equal deletion. DGG ( talk ) 08:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete the references are all profile pieces, rather than news pieces. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WrestleCon[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 22:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 22:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 22:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 22:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please be more specific. Carrot official (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Only WP:ROUTINE coverage or trivial mentions exist. Nikki♥311 02:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SIGCOV.LM2000 (talk) 06:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. I would say this also fails WP:NEVENT because the coverage I saw was not about the actual event, but merely mentioned it in passing in articles about other things. Papaursa (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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