Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 May	13 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. So Why 13:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Run Leia Run[edit]

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

I do not believe that this article is notable. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale taken from article talk page per request at WT:AFD. ~ GB fan 23:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the title is a pun on Run Lola Run. Film had a budget of $400, references appear to mostly be to advertising. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. It is great that today's tech and the interwebs allow fans to create these but that does not mean they merit an article on WikiP. There is zero sourcing to support any of the claims in the article. MarnetteD|Talk 05:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references not authoratitive. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge and redirect to a line or two in Run Lola Run as a parody indicating of the pop culture reach of that film. bd2412 T 14:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Run Lola Run has inspired or been parodied by more notable media, including The Simpsons (Trilogy of Error) and Bon Jovi (It's My Life music video). I'm not sure that Run Leia Run would be more than trivial in the Run Lola Run article. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Received a few awards and screenings and is mentioned in a source. Debresser (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - what source? There aren't any references for the article whatsoever. MarnetteD|Talk 18:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that the awards or screenings are important enough to meet WP:NFILM, when the examples given by that guideline are the Academy Awards and the Palme d'Or. The assertion of awards and screenings are uncited, and the main sources I can find on the film are its own website. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found a brief mention of it here in this book published through Springer and here, in this book published by EDUFRN, which looks to be the publishing arm of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte. The EDUFRN source looks to be longer than a one sentence mention (meaning that it'd most likely be considered in-depth enough to be considered a notability giving source), so this should at least give justification of mentioning it at the Run Lola Run article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't understand how that follows. From the snippet view of that source, all I can see is a brief, trivial mention that Run Leia Run exists, and a nutshell summary of the plot. Unless it goes on to discuss Run Leia Run in more depth, I don't think it can do anything for the notability of Run Leia Run. My understanding is that multiple sources that discuss Run Leia Run nontrivially would be needed to keep the article. I think that Run Leia Run is unimportant to Run Lola Run and should not be added there. 122.108.141.214 (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science Fiction-related deletion discussions. 122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 21 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Clarke (ice hockey, born 1979)[edit]

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

Low-level hockey player with WP:ROUTINE sources and appears to fail WP:GNG and well below WP:NHOCKEY Yosemiter (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not have experience or recognition needed for WP:NHOCKEY. Gab4gab (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A very clear matter. The Brunflo Swedish team is third tier, but check out their logo (cool). Regards, Bill McKenna (talk) 00:00, 15 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) 09:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Uscinski[edit]

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

Appears to be an advertisement for a writer with no evidence of any notability. No independent refs at all. Searches reveal social media sites and book sales sites - nothing more. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Uscinski has been quoted in the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times among seemingly many other news outlets and has written for the Washington Post, LA Times, Newsweek, Vox, etc. His academic works has contributed greatly to our understanding of conspiracy theories. In fact, he is the US's leading scholar on the topic. He seems to meet all the standards of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jepalcovich (talk • contribs) 22:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI;ve added two mangled, been-years-since-I cited-anthing ref's from Gale. They're just reviews, though. Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

——Added independent verifiable sources from Scientific American, New York Times and Washington Post among others. Also added reviews from independent scholarly sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jepalcovich (talk • contribs) 23:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsure if the claim being made for notability is WP:SCHOLAR or WP:FRINGE, but the deletion is WP:TNT. The article is low-quality and no amount of references to news articles (many of which appear to be references to his work, rather than to him personally) will improve the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the claim being made for notability is WP:SCHOLAR as the subject fits two of the seven criteria: 1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources; and 7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. The subject need only fit one of the seven.

The article contains similar information and is similar in tone to other articles about public intellectuals. Velella's comment above is simply not true: google and google news searches reveal hundreds of independent sources and show clear notability. Subject has been interviewed hundreds of times by top American and world news outlets. Independent sources have been added about the subject - sources refer to him as America's Conspiracy Theory Expert. Jepalcovich (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

note jepalcovich created the thing.Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the added citations, the number of news outlets who consider Uscinski as an expert certainly lends itself towards his having "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." Ceronomus (talk) 05:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:AUTHOR; multiple published books with non-trivial reviews. Sample review from Political Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell). Date: September 1, 2015:

American Conspiracy Theories by Joseph E. Uscinski and Joseph M. Parent. New York, Oxford University Press, 2014. 240 pp. Cloth, $99.00; paper, $29.95.

Conspiracy theories have found true believers at all times in all parts of the world, but the United States in particular has a long history of persistent rumors and full-fledged conspiracy theories spanning from colonial times to the early twenty-first century. (...) This is an innovative book that illuminates our understanding of American conspiracy theories based on empirical evidence. I recommend the book for both undergraduate and graduate courses and will use it in a seminar on social and popular movements and conspiracy theories.

As of 17 May, the state of the article is acceptable: link. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple reliably-published reviews for multiple published books should be enough for WP:AUTHOR, and he also got major media attention for the dog story. The current version of the article has WP:REFPUNCT issues but that's hardly a reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above as admin who declined speedyDlohcierekim (talk) 07:16, 21 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 History of the Brooklyn Dodgers. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trolley dodger[edit]

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

There is no source for this information. It seems to be somebody's guess that it was a pejorative term, etc. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of the Brooklyn Dodgers. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of the Brooklyn Dodgers. It is well known that the team name "Dodgers" originated from "trolley dodgers"; however, there is better sourcing for the origin and evolution of the term on the proposed target article, and I can't see the term ever having independent notability for a stand-alone article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of the Brooklyn Dodgers per the above. Good call. bd2412 T 14:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to History of the Brooklyn Dodgers. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:08, 14 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ata Benli[edit]

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

Bit part actor who fails WP:NACTOR. Small number of bit part roles in last 15 years. scope_creep (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a little bit of this and a little bit of that for film roles do not make him notable. LA2029 (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:38, 12 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew W. Allen[edit]

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

No evidence he meets the notability criteria for actors or the general notability criteria. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOR, article is parroting his personal bio and/or IMDb info. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOR his list of credits on major projects are essentially just work as an extra. Ceronomus (talk) 05:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No major roles of note, only the WP:ROUTINE IMDb coverage on him. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 16:38, 19 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Ganesh[edit]

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

No indication of notability; hardly any coverage in reliable sources, and the content is largely not verifiable from the sources given in the article (while simultaneously being promotional). Huon (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG, NFILM, plus Huon's concerns. South Nashua (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG - Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NACTOR.FITINDIA (talk) 07:38, 13 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. Consensus is that this subject might be notable of the claims could be verified by reliable sources but none of the keep-!voters have demonstrated this to be the case. So Why 13:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Tyler[edit]

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

No indication of any notability. No evidence for any association with "Chills" or "Down with Webster". No evidence that any of his own material has been notable. Earlier PROD removed by author with no improvement in establishing notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-Justin's name is listed on the Down With Webster album -There are photos of him with a platinum record indicating that he was indeed a part of the song: https://twitter.com/justintylerr/status/762694268813189120

Spiritualasf (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability. If he did in fact win a platinum and this claim could be verified, then he'd be notable but, he didn't... Meatsgains (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Platinum record that he did receive can be seen here in a photo as well: https://twitter.com/justintylerr/status/762694268813189120 - Zooming in allows you to see the certification from Music Canada. Spiritualasf (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:N. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets meet WP:N, clear evidence that this individual does indeed have a Platinum record. He is also working with big names. No reason for deletion. Crazisl12 (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC) (— Crazisl12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. )[reply]

Meeting or not meeting WP:N is a question of the quality of sourcing that can be provided to support the article. Nothing that an article can claim hands it a notability freebie in the absence of proper reliable sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless the sourcing receives a massive overhaul for reliability. A person does not pass WP:NMUSIC just because passage of NMUSIC is asserted — a person passes NMUSIC when the claim to passing NMUSIC is properly referenced to reliable source coverage in media. But what we have here is not the type of sourcing it takes to pass NMUSIC — it's sourced almost entirely to his own self-published presence on social networking platforms, with only a couple of blogs sprinkled on top and no evidence of real coverage in real media. Self-promotion is not the path to a Wikipedia article — media coverage is, but there's none being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reasons are nicely summarized by user Bearcat (talk) above. Further, his role as 1 of 8 people given writer credit for the Platinum selling “Chills” does not change the fact that the documentation of the Music Canada award for that song was awarded to the group Down With Webster (https://musiccanada.com/gold-platinum/?fwp_gp_search=CHills ), regardless of whatever auxiliary presentations were put into frames and given to other personnel who were associated with it’s production (a not uncommon practice undertaken by a record company who generally pay an extra fee to the awarding entity to provide additional certificates.) ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tyler is not a credited writer of that song. Claim of iTunes charting (a badchart anyway) is not supported by a source. A search found nothing good. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This individual is a known member of the Canadian music production industry. Aside from the 'Chills' debate above (which he is clearly involved in), he meets WP:N. I took a glance at his verified Facebook page, and during the time that 'Chills' came out, he certainly played a credible roll in the record(www.facebook.com/justintylermusic). MelissaBrownies (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC) — MelissaBrownies (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Facebook is not a reliable source for Wikipedia content. A person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of reliable source coverage in media, not by having a self-published presence on social networking platforms. Bearcat (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding coverage in independent sources for this person to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow talk 01:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above, Doesn't meet WP:N Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:47, 13 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Petrovski[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, never played in a fully professional league, and his semi-pro career of three matches would not meet WP:GNG. It is not nice to say this, but the only notable thing that happened to the young man was being killed by lightning, and while that can be a claim to notability (see Roy Sullivan) there is hardly established and long-lasting notability to Petrovski in that way (WP:NOTMEMORIAL) Harambe Walks (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Move to Death of Stefan Petrovski his death has received alot of coverage [1], Fox News, The Guardian, ABC... I see a lot of well thought of publications here. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 19:41, 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]

- WP:NOTNEWS unusual deaths are reported all the time and then forgotten about. No major change in football came of this death Harambe Walks (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. His footballing career is insufficient to meet WP:NSPORT. His death has generated some routine coverage, but is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Sad occurrence certainly, but does not meet GNG that I can see. Aoziwe (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GiantSnowman below - merge into List of footballers who died while playing. Aoziwe (talk) 06:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:ONEVENT. At most mention at List of footballers who died while playing and redirect there. Giant Snowman 15:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNG/ONEEVENT; not opposed to a redirect to List of footballers who died while playing Spiderone 13:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG, with almost all significant coverage failing WP:1E. Fenix down (talk) 09:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - a very tragic occurrence, but no evidence of lasting notability or coverage. I'd also suggest redirecting the page to List of footballers who died while playing per some of the above votes. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hi all, as the creator of this article, I have been keeping an eye on this deletion page and I have noted your points. I wasn't clear on WP:1E and presumed that he was notable as numerous news broadcasters worldwide had picked up on the story of his death, but I see through the unanimous decision on this subject that this is not enough to warrant an article. Apologies for the hassle of having to discuss deletion, and I have taken on board the points made here for future articles I create. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of footballers who died while playing. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:02, 13 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 is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Logsdail[edit]

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

Non-notable tailor lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have since included more details in his bio and film work (added the films in which he appears with a cameo) added non-trivial sources, including the New York times and Permanent Style. Please let me know if you feel that more information could be used. Thank you for your attention. Deanhdewey —Preceding undated comment added 17:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC) I have added several more sources to add credibility to the notability of Leonard Logsdail as a tailor Deanhdewey —Preceding undated comment added 20:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firm keep - Well, I've just had a good read through a number of the sources, and Logsdail certainly more than meets the requirements. It's substantial coverage, discussion that is actually about him and his work, his life, his approaches to tailoring, etc. He's given plenty of credit for his contributions to costuming. Glancing at the page when it was nominated, I can see why it was nominated for deletion, but I do wonder whether the nominator even bothered to do a basic Google search first - a glance at Google Books pulls up lots of coverage in various publications across the board, not just a few name checks, but references such as this, which makes it very clear that Logsdail and his work are both held in high regard by those who know what they are talking about/doing, but also, I see quite a few namechecks for him in popular fiction and in other books where his name is just dropped as a byword for high end tailoring - not that those in themselves would be appropriate evidence of notability, BUT the fact there are quite a number of such name-checks in novels, etc, is a pretty big clue that this guy is KNOWN, and that he has name recognition. I also had a glance at the hits for his name in Google News, and quite a bit of decent coverage there too. So yes, I am surprised that this was nominated for deletion, rather than simply being tagged for improvement. Mabalu (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Mabalu's analysis (which I confirm with a quick once over - books in particular).Icewhiz (talk) 08:52, 15 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. Having been relisted, the consensus has become clear to keep this article (after a relisting it isn't necessary to leave it open for the full next 7 days). It is no longer necessary to leave this open any longer. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tetsu Nakamura (actor)[edit]

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

Biography of an actor, which makes no strong claim of notability per WP:NACTOR and cites no strong reliable source coverage to support it -- as written, this claims one unsourced leading role and one supporting role referenced to a source about the film, which contains no content about his performance beyond a glancing namecheck of his existence in its cast list. But an actor doesn't get over NACTOR's "significant roles" criterion just because the cast lists nominally verify that he had the role -- he gets over it when substantive content about his role, such as actual analysis of his performance, supports the role being considered "major" enough to count as notability. Between the fact that he appeared primarily in Japanese films and the fact that his career was 50 to 80 years ago, it's certainly possible that a WP:GNG pass might exist in references I cannot locate or read, so I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who can access and read older Japanese-language sourcing can beef it up, but what's here right now simply isn't enough by itself to earn him a presumption of notability in the absence of better sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at his IMDB page, Tetsu Nakamura certainly seems to have had a long career, appearing in a number of films. Probably a notable Japanese bilingual actor in western films. Comparable to other actors of his ilk, who certainly are notable enough to have pages Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mostly a by-player, he had a rather unique career with activity in both film and opera, in Japan and abroad. As a by-player, there is not a lot written about him that is accessible on the net, but he has detailed and substantial entries in the major Japanese film actor dictionaries. I have expanded the article using the one on my shelf, the Kinema Junpo actor dictionary. I believe this is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep considering his roles as the antagonist in multiple Japanese films. Apart from that, he had a prolific career in opera too. The main issue here, as given in the nomination, was the accessibility of Japanese language sources. Now sources have been provided. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. --Skr15081997 (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 14 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Jesus Experience[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:15, 12 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ClickUp[edit]

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

This semipromotional article is sourced entirely to reposted press releases and the sort of blogs that host mostly paid advertisements as 'articles'. I've looked and I haven't sound any better sources, so I think this article does not meet the general notability guideline or WP:NSOFTWARE and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Article is corp and product spam (I removed the "Features" section). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ClickUp has been mentioned and sourced by larger publications as well. These are not paid promotions, and I've listed some of these below. The company just signed on SpaceX for their beta trial which will be released publicly in the summer. I do not believe there is reason to remove this listing. Wes415 12:48, 7 May 2017 (PST)

https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/clickup/funding-rounds
http://www.thedigitalprojectmanager.com/best-project-management-software-tools/
https://www.inc.com/drew-hendricks/7-tools-that-startups-should-know-about-right-now.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wes415 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crunchbase is an indiscriminate database of all companies. thedigitalprojectmanager is a another blog with no reputation for a reliable editorial process. Inc.com would be better, but this is posted in the bloggy/opinion contributors section. As the article is tagged 'The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.' - MrOllie (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. None of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:13, 12 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 for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Palhoto[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any WP:GNG or WP:BIO passing coverage of the subject. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 06:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Article seems to be a clear case of WP:TOOSOON as the subject is only 16, the article can easily be recreated if and when the subject meets the aforementioned requirements. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article makes no indication of signature coverage in reliable sources, and I was unable to independently find any through online sources. Jogurney (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to find anything to verify a biograpic entry with. /Julle (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's subject does not appear to be notable enough for there to be a substantial amount of English language sources. Firstclass306 (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't necessarily a problem. We don't require sources to be in English – no encyclopedia writing about the entire world can rely on one language to get the information it needs. We merely prefer English sources over non-English sources when they're of equal quality and relevance. Worse, though, is that there doesn't seem to be any substantial amount of sources in any other language either. /Julle (talk) 23:14, 18 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meem Hasan Latifi[edit]

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

Searching for this gentleman's name in both English and Urdu fails to turn up much of anything that would support these unsourced claims of notability. Even the Urdu Wikipedia page is the merest of stubs, with a single weblink that we can check: http://www.bio-bibliography.com/authors/view/7774. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If deleted, the redirect Meem Hay Latifi, by a different editor, should also go. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing turn up in Google scholar and books. --Saqib (talk) 05:18, 13 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VideoBlocks[edit]

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

No claim of significance. What makes this website different from other video downloading websites? Created by an SPA, who edits like pro. Probably a paid article. They did not disclose fully but acknowledged as connected contributor. Mar11 (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:59, 13 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Gardner (actor)[edit]

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

Autobiography of an actor -only one role in a released film and that was a supporting role.Does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG at this time. His upcoming film is a University project film here so is unlikely to be notable Atlantic306 (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A credit as "Clerk 1"? Fails NACTOR and GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only independent sources in the article name him as nominee or winner of a little known student award. Searching finds nothing helpful. Fails WP:NACTOR. Gab4gab (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage and roles to date for this subject do not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Gongshow talk 06:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. A bit part in a single film doesn't make this Wikipedia-notable to meet WP:ENT, otherwise you'd get every college acting and film student listed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:54, 19 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanunjaya Rao[edit]

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

Probably one of the longest standing fraud's in Wikipedia history. A crafty editor (who is a web developer according to this article) copied the contents of Ravi Teja's page and edited it so as to have Ravi Teja's achievements while substituting Ravi Teja's name for his own. He has also slipped in some information about himself in the Early Life Section, while retaining the majority of the lead from the Ravi Teja article. I would have gone for a Speedy Delete, but my experience tells me that this would have been referred to AfD owing to its age. And this fictitious actor will probably find a place in Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Jupitus Smart 13:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A vanity article whose content is almost entirely WP:HOAX material. (Repurposing the career of an actor born in 1968 for someone born 20 years later is not a smart move, leading to discrepencies such as an illustrious career before the age of 5.) Leaving aside the attempt at borrowed glory, all we have here is that he went to school and got a job in IT; even that mundanity cannot be validated and searches indicate nothing notable about someone of this name. AllyD (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete undoubtedly a vanity article as per nom Burley22 (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Power~enwiki (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax article. Ceronomus (talk) 05:55, 16 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. However, the outcome is definitely not delete. Kurykh (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Barthold[edit]

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

I'm unable to find any references or decent online resources about this person. Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At the very least it should redirect to List of Peabody Award winners (1970–79)#1976. --Michig (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to an article to be created for the purpose: 1976 Jordan, Iowa tornado sources for that topic include [2], [3], the tornado (actually, a cluster of them) blew the small town of Jordan, Iowa away, literally [4] , [5], an produced the incredible footage that won this news photographer a Peabody. If we had had Wikipedia in 1976, it would already be an article. I'll create it, or cede that chore to anyone who wants to take it on.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or redirect to Jordan, Iowa.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the point redirecting to a page where he isn't even mentioned? Did you mean merge there? --Michig (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Jordan, Iowa pending creation of new page, 1976 Jordan, Iowa tornado, as per E.M.Gregory (though one could fairly ask whether the town is notable independent of the tornado). Charles Barthold seems to be firmly in WP:ONEEVENT territory.Agricolae (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may well be that the material would be better at an article about the tornado. Nevertheless, it is still encyclopaedic where it is and should be kept there pending someone working on it. I note that not only do we not have an article about this scientifically important tornado, but it is not even in List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks. This is the only place on Wikipedia we have this information. SpinningSpark 22:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Peabody Award certainly qualifies as a "a well-known and significant award or honor" per WP:ANYBIO#1. The contribution of his footage to the field of tornado studies is arguably also qualifying under criterion #2 of that same standard. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:25, 23 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noelle Hannibal[edit]

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

Fails NACTOR, her 7 credits on imdb are all roles as an extra South Nashua (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of coverage found in reliable sources for the subject to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Gongshow talk 16:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than her own web-show she has not a single credited role to her name. Work as an extra does not meet notability requirements. Ceronomus (talk) 05:57, 16 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Cricket League Twenty20 records[edit]

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

Complete set of stats for defunct short-lived tournament. These stats are never needed WP:LISTCRUFT. Greenbörg (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unneeded listcruft. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR. Ajf773 (talk) 20:24, 12 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. The last two !votes were disregarded for lack of a rationale. Kurykh (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grafting number[edit]

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

Not a notable mathematical term. Previously deleted in July 2012, but G4 speedy deletion was declined. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Though I can’t see the previous version of this article to compare, non-notable, whether it’s on the same number or not, as just something someone made up. No evidence of any mathematical notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - seems to only be discussed in one source, R. Tanniru, A short note introducing Grafting Numbers and their connection to Catalan Numbers, J. Comb. Math. and Comb. Computing, 95 (2015), 309-312. Tanniru is also the submitter of the sequence to OEIS. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Power~enwiki (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Matt Parker. XOR'easter (talk) 17:17, 15 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nohshad Shah[edit]

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

Not a particularly notable person, a typical competent individual. Although sourced, the citations seem to be basic press releases, without any indication that the individual is significant in the wider world. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=780027710&oldid=780015803 notwithstanding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. The first four sources are the same press release repeated, while the last two seem to be dead links. If he truly met GNG, we would have other in-depth sources that weren't from September 2015 - but we don't. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GNG asks for significant and independent coverage, not merely coverage. As Ritchie333 states, most of the coverage linked is reprinted press releases of two career events, which is not independent coverage. It is re-iterating the same information from Goldman Sachs or Deutsche Bank, his employers. Such coverage is also very WP:ROUTINE. No additional sources seem available that provide any other information or contribute to general or specific notability guidelines. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I can't find much that isn't derived from the press release. Here is something: Senior rates salesman swaps Deutsche for Goldman I can't read it because of the paywall, but I doubt it covers anything not in the press release, and it seems to depend on unnamed "people familiar with the matter." Even if there is something in that story, it doesn't amount to substantial coverage. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in the links provided demands a biography here under any wp:policy or guideline. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A google-news search shows 4 hits - which are all notices of appointments. If he starts giving interviews and moving into the limelight he might become notable - but he hasn't to date.Icewhiz (talk) 20:59, 16 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Yadav (activist)[edit]

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

Non notable politician Jainav4671 (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable coverage apart from 1 event. Fails GNG and NPOL. ChunnuBhai (talk) 15:04, 16 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 Karnataka Premier League. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Karnataka Premier League[edit]

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

Local league's season with no notability. Fails WP:GNG Greenbörg (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Karnataka Premier League Fails WP:GNG, but plausible redirect. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Joseph2302, but I wouldn't oppose a delete either. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:51, 12 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Richert[edit]

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

WP:NMOTORSPORT This is an amateur driver, who was always in the last places of the standings of low-level championships. He can't be considered as professional by any measures. P.S. Also I suspect that here can be a conflict of interest, as when the article was created it was looked like act of self-promotion [6] And the author haven't made any other edits, excluding this article. Corvus tristis (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are 5 sources provided - the two motorsport.com pages are not neutral (one is from VW and one is from his race team) and neither is the one from the team page. One is a blog and those are generally not reliable as they don't have editorial review. So 4 of the 5 sources are knocked out right off the bat, so we don't have multiple (the 5th source is a local blurb about a paragraph, hardly significant coverage). The WP:NMOTORSPORT requires not just a professional series, but that prize money be non-trivial compared to costs. National/small regional Formula Renault 2.0 series would seem to be just that. These are all below the World Series by Renault that is at least below Formula 1 and most likely GP2 Series (and even GP3 Series). Most of the results I found in a google search are Manitoba-based "local kid does good" short articles. Without showing more, a fourth or fifth tier racer with low results is a delete. RonSigPi (talk) 22:51, 15 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 nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvement. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Perkins Jr.[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a small city mayor, whose only substantive claim of notability is that he was the city's first African American mayor. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, however, being the first member of a politically underrepresented minority group to hold an otherwise non-notable office is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself -- he could still qualify if there were enough sourcing and substance to get him over the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our criteria for local officeholders, but it's not an automatic inclusion freebie on the basis of just one or two sources of which one is a deadlinked piece of routine campaign coverage in the local newspaper. The other source being CNN is one step up -- but it takes more than just one source to make the mayor of a small town more notable than other mayors of small towns, so that source doesn't get this over the finish line all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I wonder if there might be more out there that can be added to this, but I am not sure. Fails NPOL as is right now. South Nashua (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've found and added more references. His election was also covered by ABC News, and local sources have enabled me to add a bit about his education and work. (I decided not to use this one.) He also ran again unsuccessfully in 2016. I believe with that second major news article, plus the ongoing coverage that now makes this a minimal biography, that he meets GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was not the first black mayor of Just Anywhere, USA: Selma, Alabama was a key flashpoint of the American civil rights movement and later home of the National Voting Rights Museum. Accordingly, his election and sometimes acrimonious tenure received national attention. A few examples from a HighBeam search: Washington Post (2000) [7][8]; The Christian Science Monitor (2000) [9], (2003)[10]; Boston Globe (2001) [11]; Charleston Gazette-Mail (2001) [12]; Newsweek (2005) [13]. Elected the president of the National Conference of Black Mayors in 2008. [14]. I think this is enough to warrant an article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos' examination of the sources; passes WP:ANYBIO with persistent coverage in reliable secondary sources. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added comment. I found and added the Christian Science Monitor and was coming here to report that there is also an article in the Los Angeles Times—from a little after he was elected—that enabled me to add even more biographical information. I also see an Al-Jazeera article. Arxiloxos has found even more; I'll add the National Conference of Black Mayors. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Bearcat: Selma is not just another small city. It is a regionally important city, and symbolically a hugely important city. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of which confers an exemption from an article having to be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as noted, Selma is notable enough in the context of African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–1968) that he is notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the sourcing found clearly shows the subject is notable. LadyofShalott 00:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the additional sources, and the unique place of Selma in African-American history, render this an easy decision. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The improved referencing now in the article shows that he is notable. Thanks to Arxiloxos and Yngvadottir. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above comments. Sourcing shows that the article may as well be notable enough to stay. Cosmic Clone (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Selma, Alabama is an important city within the History of the Civil Rights Movement-Thank YouRFD (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, y'all. I agree, this article is now much better sourced and shows stronger evidence of notability than it did at the time. But just to be clear, it's the sourcing improvement that salvages this, not the mere assertion that an automatic GNG-exempted notability freebie would have been created by the conjunction of "first African American mayor" with the fact that the city in question happens to be Selma — regardless of how notable any given claim might sound like it should be in theory, it's the depth and breadth of sourcing that can be shown, not the mere presence of a minimally sourced claim, that determines whether notability is actually there in fact. At any rate, the sourcing is now there, so consider this withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 13 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. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Majora (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTEX Industries[edit]

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

Content is generally promotional and all content of any substance is drawn directly from the company's own website. The Ownership section is the only part of the page that has anything approaching independent sources, and these are simply press releases (so not that independent). Can't find any better sources online that would attest to notability. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jupitus Smart: Hi, I saw the helpdesk posting so I did a little search for sources of my own. Please could you comment on the validity or otherwise of the following potential sources, and whether, in your opinion, they constitute sufficient to meet the notability requirements;

"Private Equity Firm Tied to New York Pension Scandal Raises $7.7 Billion From Investors" in New York Times, [15]
"Investment triggers rapid growth at Ashington seal manufacturer" in The Journal, [16]
"UTEX to consolidate operations, bolster base" in Rubber and Plastics News, [17]
"Moody’s Reviews 69 American Energy Companies for Downgrade" in 24/7 Wall Street, [18]
"UTEX Industries acquired by Rhone Capital" in Oil and Gas Financial Journal, [19]

Thanks, 81.168.78.73 (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article only mentions UTEX Industries in passing, as do the Journal and 24/7 Wall Street. The Oil & Gas Financial Journal piece looks like a press release, but I'm less sure about Rubber and Plastic News, that one might be usable. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that NYT and 24/7 are passing mentions, but I don't agree about the Journal because it's about a company which it says "became part of the UTEX Industries corporation in 2011" - hence it seems directly relevent to the subject.

I believe there is enough to establish notability. 81.168.78.73 (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above 81.168.78.73 (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a Keep if someone can rewrite it completely. It looks notable as nothing more than an advert at the moment. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 15:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All the information in the articles able make it a notable company. https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4395630 Even has a little excerpt about them. Not sure how much rewriting can be done Jenova. Information can only be stated in so many different ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cydney456 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC) — Cydney456 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Information can only be stated in so many different ways" - Yes...But there's stating information factually and neutrally, and there's stating it in an unacceptable advertising-like POV for Wikipedia. Two different ways. One acceptable here, and one not. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 12:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per 81.168.78.73 above, and the Journal article, whoich should be added to our article as a cite. I removed the worst of the puffery from the article. DES ^(talk) 00:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the article is not a pure advertisement. It is notable and deserves to stay but only if it is almost completely rewritten. Generally speaking I don't think promotional articles with notability meet deletion criteria. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets GNG. Needs a lot of editing. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Seems pretty clear the community wants to hang on to this. Still not sure I agree, but I'm evidently in the minority. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:27, 15 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. Only one !vote after the last relist which is keep explicitly because of the new sources provided. The nominator and the first delete-!vote did not consider these sources as far as one can tell and the other delete-!vote was "per nom". So Why 12:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black & Lane's Ident Tones for Surround[edit]

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

This exists, but I can't find any coverage for it. SL93 (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator, no coverage. Meatsgains (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Internationally recognized standard for Surround Lineup, used by Eurovision and the European Broadcasting Union, sources are available for this, so please clarify what you need. Sunil The Mongoose (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- See here [20], [21], [22] - major technical companies are including this standard in their professional broadcast monitoring tools for the trade. Sunil The Mongoose (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. fails GNG -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 03:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously closed as "delete"; restored and relisted to allow for further review of the sources produced by Sunil The Mongoose
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New source: [23] - this link shows a BLITS 2 generator, and clearly notes in the text that this system is used by Sky Sports on all their OB surround services. Sunil The Mongoose (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources of Sunil The Mongoose. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 23:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two New sources:

[24] - This PDF links to a production standard document for transmission delivery from TVNZ, which uses BLITS for surround lineup and refers to the standard layout in appendix 4 (P17).

[25] - Document from RTW noting the addition of BLITS to their professional monitoring equipment, and stating that "this sequence has gained widespread adoption in international broadcasting."

Sunil The Mongoose (talk) 15:34, 15 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 20:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Liebgott[edit]

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

Joseph Liebgott was an enlisted man with E Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment during World War II. He parachuted into Europe twice and fought in Normandy, the Netherlands, and Belgium. He did not attain rank or receive awards to qualify him under WP:SOLDIER and his later life was generally non-notable. His portrayal in Band of Brothers on TV is not as a major character. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of USA-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I don't find anything on newspapers.com or geneaolgybank.com (a newspapers service similar to newspapers.com but that does not do clippings) about Liebgott as an adult. There is a notice in the Oakland Tribune (on January 6, 1935, p6) about the golden wedding anniversary of his grandparents, Thadeus and Barbara. This notice gives some biographical information about them and their move from Hungary to Detroit to the Bay. There is a series of articles about his mother, who left the family for a short time in 1929. When she rejoined the family, an article was written which includes the names of Joseph's siblings (Oakland Tribune (Oakland, CA) July 23, 1929, page 48). None of this really contributes to his notability, but it does give more flesh to what is possible to write about his early life based on reliable sources. There are a number of trivial notices likely about his participation in youth activities and sports, such as from genealogybank.com in 1927, there was a Joseph Liebgott who was a member of St. Anthony's Boys Choir and is in a picture in the San Francisco Chronicle (Saturday, October 8, 1927, p 31). There is also a 1933 marriage notice on geneaolgybank.com for a "Joseph D. Liebgott, 18" and "Frances N. Lomas, 15" both of San Leandro (San Francisco Chronicle (San Francisco, California), Friday, July 28, 1933, p 13) but it is not clear to me that these are definitely the same figure and thus including these in the article would probably be OR.

The main reason I do not !vote delete, then, has to do with his story's inclusion in WWII literature beyond writings having to do specifically with the band of brothers. I think the stories about him in non-band of brothers focused books repeats what can be read in band of brothers-focused books and in this article. Such non-band of brothers-focused sources discuss Liebgott with one or two paragraphs of anecdote and include:

Schrijvers, Peter. Those who Hold Bastogne: The True Story of the Soldiers and Civilians who Fought in the Biggest Battle of the Bulge. Yale University Press, 2014. p113
Beevor, Antony. Ardennes 1944: The Battle of the Bulge. Penguin, 2016. p352
Lewis, Tom. Lethality in Combat: A Study of the True Nature of Battle. Big Sky Publishing, 2012. p128

Also, outside of what is currently in the article, he is included in depth in other books by other authors which focus on band of brothers figures:

Alexander, Larry. Biggest Brother: the life of Major Dick Winters, the man who led the Band of Brothers. Penguin, 2006. p10, 11, 18, 67, 89, 90, 99
Kingseed, Cole. Conversations with Major Dick Winters: Life Lessons from the Commander of the Band of Brothers. Penguin, 2015, p110, 127
Ooms, Ronald. Silver Eagle: The Official Biography of Band of Brothers Veteran Clancy Lyall. Pneuma Springs Publishing, 2013. p58, 69, 112

Given multiple stories about his actions as a soldier are included in non-band of brothers books and the rather large role he seems to play in the books (in spite of perhaps playing a minor role in the TV show), it seems to me that this article passes V, NPOV, NOR, and satisfied GNG (if only just). Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took the liberty of correcting the url on one book.
Delete -- the sources listed above do not strike me as sufficient. For example, the "official bio" of Clancy Lyall was written by a persona friend: "Thanks to his close friendship with WW2-veteran Clancy Lyall, of the famous Band of Brothers, he was able to write a book about the life of this paratrooper called 'Silver Eagle: the official biography of Band of Brothers veteran Clancy Lyall." It's published by a small-time publisher. "Discuss Liebgott with one or two paragraphs of anecdote" is also insufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The article is about a character in a book and TV series. As such, the subject is semi-fictional, based on memories of people who knew the individual over 70 years ago: memories that might or might not be factual. As a member of the subject's family, I know that much of what has been published about him is not true, but is the conjecture of his "buddies". If this article is about a "TV character", then it does not reflect the real man. If the article is about the real man, then he is not notable enough for an article. Eastcote (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems like an interesting person, even if only half is true, but he was not notable. Bearian (talk) 16:04, 22 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung SPH-A900[edit]

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

Yet another cellphone that probably cannot be meaningfully said to have made history. Article has been unsourced for 11 years, and for 5 has been marked as such. No evidence of notability has been established in that time. —Keφr 13:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable cellphone with no coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:26, 12 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SoftDEL Systems[edit]

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

Article does not have reliable sources at all and on quick search, no sources are found either. Fails WP:NORG. Advt tag since 2010. Article is clearly promotional. Includes "industry alliances" and "business lines". Primary sources or just trivial mentions. Nizil (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
List or series this can merge to? Hyperbolick (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and the article is total spam -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:17, 16 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Formula One season[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:TOOSOON. Racing season is still a year and a half plus away. The references are all copied over from 2018 Formula One season. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Formula One seasons until at least the end of this year. Way too soon. Heck, only two teams have confirmed at least one driver so far, and we don't even have a race schedule released! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Formula One seasons for now since it's too far in the future. Dough4872 13:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way to soon. Formula One just doesn't have the habit of thinking more than a year ahead. Little is known yet about the 2019 season. Some race contracts and driver contracts exist, but multiple year contracts for these instance are more or less routine. Nothing more specific on 2019, e.g. on the rules, is known.T v x1 00:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nomination. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. DH85868993 (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As a plausible search term and per WP:NSEASONS. Not worthy of its own article yet. Smartyllama (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Way too soon on this one. I don't feel that people will be searching for info about a season that is 2 ahead of the current year, so is not a plausible search term yet. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 16:41, 19 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 and redirect to Ayurveda. Since it is mentioned there, redirecting after deletion makes sense. So Why 12:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shalya Tantra[edit]

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

This is a very strange statement "Doctors removed a 240-gram prostate from a man without the use of antibiotics." The prostate is not removed by "antibiotics" ever. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — (laughing at the nominator's interpretation)... delete as not notable in the medicine field and as promoting dangerous and potentially illegal (depending where) practices, pseudoscience, etc. Has only one reference which is not reliable, nothing would be lost. — Paleo Neonate — 00:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ayurveda - The subject is discussed there, and this article brings no new reliable information so nothing would be lost. KarlPoppery (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced claims in the medical field, or any scientific field actually, have no place on Wikipedia. WP:FRINGE applies and this article should be removed "without the use of antibiotics" ASAP. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:45, 21 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. postdlf (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Records and achievements of Usher[edit]

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

90% of this information is already repeated on his Discography and bio pages, and 10% is unsourced Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:20, 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 02:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, contains no useful relevant info that isn't already in other articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencyclopaedic to be useful LA2029 (talk) 21:04, 12 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shyfi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Blackguard 02:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. There's absolutely zero coverage about the subject in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:00, 12 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Hyde (musician)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician lacking non-trivial support. The "references" are advertisements for his album, listings for the band, Facebook, and a couple of album reviews. Lacks in-depth references. reddogsix (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC. LA2029 (talk) 20:57, 12 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chetraro Hawaz (Voice of Chitral)[edit]

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

not notable. could find reliable sources. Saqib (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. The only source in the article is to a "news site" that anyone can edit, and thus a self-published source, not a reliable source per WP's rules. It's also a dead link... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:59, 12 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delanie Fitzpatrick[edit]

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

Fitzpatrick has not received anywhere near the coverage needed to pass GNG. Her roles are in two closely related productions, and not all that significant, so I don't think it is enough to meet our entertainer guidelines. She essentially was a small time child actress who did not continue on acting when she reached adulthood. This is not the stuff of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree that this person is not notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:59, 12 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zeben jameson[edit]

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

Despite all of the claims in the article (which by the way, read like something out of a garage band article), significant coverage for Jameson, reliable or otherwise, does not seem to exist. The duo he used to be part of, A Mountain of One, is a redlink, although a cursory search suggests that it could be notable (as per this link). Had A Mountain of One had an article, I would have suggested a redirect to that, but that is not the case. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found a link auf Deutsch. Und- A Mountain of One on German W. still looking Dloh cierekim 05:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet [[WP:GNG}}. Isufficinet coverageDlohcierekim (talk) 13:19, 12 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Camarata[edit]

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

I don't find any sources to support notability under the the general notability guidelines. Likewise, the organization he founded, us-Sunnah Foundation, doesn't meet them, so there's nothing to suggest that he might meet WP:BIO. The sources given in the article are all affiliated, including the us-Sunnah Foundation website and videos of Ali Camarata interviews. Largoplazo (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 TV stations from 2 countries listed in the article which should meet the requirements Alisalaah (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Giving a few presentations and interviews is not enough to make one notable. What we need is indepedent, indepth 3rd party coverage in reliable sources and that is entirely lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 19 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. Rewriting the article can be done at editorial discretion outside the ambit of WP:AFD. Kurykh (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galidor: Defenders of the Outer Dimension[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, also being completely unsourced, and receives prominent vandalism with no care by the majority of editors, wherefore it should be deleted. Lordtobi (✉) 06:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Yashovardhan (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Yashovardhan (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Yashovardhan (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG is met with [26], [27], which (among others) discuss how it was a terrible show that existed to market Legos. Merge to some aspect of LEGO might be reasonable as well, but it's a real, nationally-aired television show, even if a "forgettable" one. Oh, and vandalism frequency is a concern, but not a reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Stub - Most of the existing content needs to be deleted, but the page should be kept. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stub - everything past the opening two paragraphs is just plot details that really aren't worth keeping in this situation; and I know I've seen actual sources about the development of the show and toyline somewhere that could contribute better to the page Jessietail (talk) 07:03, 13 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Allen (actor)[edit]

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

WP:NN actor. Unable to find anything other than sources saying he had a few parts or promotional stuff. Toddst1 (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Does not meet WP:NACTOR, nothing at Gale, unable to locate significant coverage online. Dloh cierekim 21:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a minor character actor, not notable. Ceronomus (talk) 06:10, 16 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 Alvin and the Chipmunks discography. Leaving the history in place so any useful information can be merged if needed. So Why 12:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Chipmunks Go Hollywood[edit]

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

Article has been unsourced since April 2016 (possibly longer). Article does not seem to have evidence of notability. DBZFan30 (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads more like a catalog listing than an album, in my opinion.TH1980 (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article simply lists songs from an album and does not provide any significant information about the album. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alvin and the Chipmunks discography, as it seems like the most appropriate choice. Aoba47 (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alvin and the Chipmunks discography. The Chipmunks and what they do is notable, but a separate article aint needed. Anyway, whats there is sourced now. with these sources.

https://www.amazon.com/Chipmunks-Go-Hollywood/dp/B000RY7TT4

https://www.discogs.com/Chipmunks-The-Chipmunks-Go-Hollywood/release/1499597

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHRkc6DmovE

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/10131/chipmunks-go-hollywood

https://genius.com/albums/Alvin-and-the-chipmunks/The-chipmunks-go-hollywood

https://www.etsy.com/listing/170113412/vintage-the-chipmunks-go-hollywood-game --Pgapunk (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the album itself is only marginally notable, without any evidence of particular critical praise and/or chart success, I also support a redirect over to 'Alvin_and_the_Chipmunks_discography'. If there's any additional content that needs to be added to that other article (from a quick look, the page appears to need a lot of work), then we can deal with that separately. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:22, 22 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tambaram Corporation[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON Meatsgains (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nominator.The corporation is still a proposal.In our country unfortunately a proposal does not garuantee its implementation. 11:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forceradical (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:45, 12 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. So Why 12:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Within the Wires[edit]

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

Not my field, but notability seems doubtful. Huffington is not a RS. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's also been reviewed on IndieWire, and is part of the same "Network" as Welcome to Night Vale. Fireheart14 (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Also CBC Radio if that means anything). Fireheart14 (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Most of the sources only mention the podcast in passing, though there are enough RS to establish notability. Meatsgains (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I added a few more sources with mentions and highlights from sources such as Wired and Vulture.) Fireheart14 (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions have nothing to do with notability , no matter how many there are. What they are useful for is advertising. DGG ( talk ) 14:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just meant it in the sense that they may hold more weight in terms of RS than some of the previous ones like Huffington Post. ("Mentions" might not be the best descriptor tbh, since I didn't bother including articles that namedropped and moved on since they don't actually provide any info.) Fireheart14 (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to have sufficient coverage to establish notability. Artw (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments should be grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:NBOOK Power~enwiki (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NBOOK quite specifically refers to books, not other intellectual productions. Read it. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Until then, this guideline may be instructive by analogy." Power~enwiki (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly has coverage in independent secondary sources. I see no reason to delete it. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not entirely sure about the article as is. However, CBC Radio is unambiguously a reliable source, and that plus other bits of coverage (even, admittedly, from more questionable publications) seems to make the podcast qualify under general notability guidelines. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:19, 22 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leandro Nerefuh[edit]

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

Completing nomination per WP:AGF on behalf of Wall4009 (talk · contribs), whose rationale (from an edit summary here) was "This person has not done anything significant, and should be removed". On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article could be scratched and done again with proper sourcing.TH1980 (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know the work of Nerefuh well enough to have formed an opinion yet, but the ICA stands out for me as a notable institution. The subject may very well be notable. Mduvekot (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the ICA event was a two-hour long workshop, not an exhibition. An editor fluent in Portuguese or Spanish could better evaluate notability. Netherzone (talk) 22:39, 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 03:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is seems to a case of COI. The so-called political party seems to be a joke. Anyway he does not seem to have enough coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. Bilhauano (talk) 02:36, 14 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 Marian Hill. (non-admin closure) f e minist 05:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Gongol[edit]

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

Poorly sourced and written, and not notable as a solo artist per WP:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 02:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Marian Hill not notable outside that duo.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marian Hill. Premature article creation. I'd concede to "merge", but the single sentence that's there doesn't have any encyclopedic value and would not expand Marian Hill in any significant way. "Samantha Gongol is an American singer more popularly known for Down along with school friend Jeremy Lloyd". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marian Hill; I'm not finding coverage to suggest that a standalone article is warranted. Gongshow talk 16:51, 12 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Narjis Afroz Zaidi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Cited sources,except one, are not reliable enough to be used on Wikipedia. fails notability criteria. Saqib (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:43, 12 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. WP:NPASR due to low participation. (non-admin closure) f e minist 14:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Esa Piironen[edit]

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

A very nice resume, but doesn't seem to be a notable architect. Many of his awards are second or third-place finishes in what appears to be unremarkable, local competitions. There are even a few honorable mentions. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep -- appears to have been involved in a number of notable projects in public spaces: subways stations, etc; sample & another. More sources probably exist in Finnish. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article needs work and toning down. A google book search - [28] convinced me to vote keep. e.g. - [29][30][31][32][33][34][35].Icewhiz (talk) 08:22, 15 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. See WP:NPASR should circumstances warrant. Kurykh (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Class-XD Amplifier[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROMOTION and mainly uses primary sources. Osarius - Want a chat? 18:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (Neutral, neither support nor oppose) Would this be a good candidate for merging with Cambridge Audio? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (Oppose Deletion) I have now added three independent press articles and details of patent granted.

Could you let me know what else is required. Andburslem (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:43, 12 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. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content House Kenya[edit]

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

Appears to be a relatively new outfit. Some of its output has received some limited coverage but the company itself seems to have received only peripheral and glancing mentions. Searches reveal very little else. One of the films might be notable (although probably not the one which already has a Wikipedia article), but the company falls below the bar. Fails to meet WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The organization may be "relatively new" as you said, but the work it has done over the years has received significant coverage in local, regional and international (Al Jazeera) media. I have since included other references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saokoth (talk • contribs) 11:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:43, 12 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Live Arts[edit]

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

promotional article on local group, with no third party evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline G11 at the moment. The potential references that I saw out there were of the routine and/or press release variety.--Mojo Hand (talk) 13:54, 15 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 01:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wizardry (The Edge)[edit]

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

Sourced to game manual and one 'zine review of questionable reliability. WP:BEFORE discloses download sites and some social media, but little else. No significant coverage in WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What problem do you see with Zzap! 64? After a quick search I found this game also reviewed in Your Commodore.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I personally recognize that it was a hardcopy, paper publication, so it probably meets the RS requirements, but you can't really blame someone for thinking a source as bizarrely (and seemingly unprofessionally) named "Zzap!64" may not be a reliable source. I mean, that was my gut reaction too, before looking it up. Sergecross73 msg me 16:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

really, we should somehow SIGNIFICANTLY rise the bar for deletion of content on wikipedia *sigh*, a "gut reaction" is clearly not high enough Shaddim (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely stating that a title like "Zzap!64" doesn't look like a reliable source at an initial glance. It's not an actual word, there's punctuation ("!") in between letters and numbers without a space, etc etc. It looks more like a random online pseudonym than a legit magazine. It was just a passing thought though, I wasn't using it as a reason to delete, nor do I have any idea if that had anything to do with the nominator's actual nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I beg for pardon, you were not specifically meant- I was somewhat venting my frustration over the waste of time and resources... if instead of deletion pushing some people would work on articles.... Shaddim (talk) 20:37, 19 May 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, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep there is reception, no need for removal. Shaddim (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which consists of two very short sentences sourced to one reference. You need to prove it meets the WP:GNG, which at the very least requires multiple sources. Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

which is no problem if people would spend their time on finding sources instead of focusing on deletion of content. As reminder, the idea is that we create a encyclopedia, not delete it. Shaddim (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of this adds up to a valid keep argument. Look I'm not even advocating keep or delete yet, I'm just pointing out that your argument isn't valid in itself. I'm trying to help here. You need to be able to provide evidence for your claims - you can't just make vague allusions about a game's reception, or you get ignored. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

which i did, the article is now well referenced. Point is: this is a waste of time, this could and should have done by the asker for deletion. I think making deletion request harder (and improving articles easier) would be really a good thing. Shaddim (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, we're on the same page now then. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shaddims source additions. Subjects from the 1980s often have coverage locked away in paper magazines. This appears to be the case here. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I meant to get back to this sooner and add in the Your Commodore ref. I see Shaddim has already done that, but I did tidy it up quite a bit (don't know where he got the 80/100 score from). Anyway, 1980s games can be hard to dig up sources for, but we do seem to have at least the bare minimum needed to confirm notability.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:04, 21 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Hearne[edit]

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

Hearne was a child actor who really never had top roles, despite the claim he "starred" in Hard Ball. At best that is one significant role in a major production, I don't really see how to work it into two. The sourcing is lacking. The one source is his own website essentially. A look on google produced nothing promising. Blogspot interviews, a Wiki Nicolodean site, IMDb and other unreliable sources, but no reliable 3rd party sources providing substantial coverage. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Power~enwiki (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unsourced original research; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 14 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sävsjömålet[edit]

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

Not in English, but from Google Translate, this appears to be a game report of a ~~football~~ bandy match. Not exactly something that needs an article considering it only appeared to be a regular league match rather than, say, a cup final or something like that. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Today the same article was deleted from Swedish Wikipedia three times. Largoplazo (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a web developer (based on the page targeted by the link given in the article) bragging about his own performance during a local amateur bandy club match. Largoplazo (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SNOWBALL. Totally non-notable goal by non-notable person. Appears to be created as WP:LINKSPAM. Sjö (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable event from a local floorball match in the 90's and POV all the way, carries no encyclopedic value. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable. Would be opposed to speedy as virtually every sporting match has some claim to significance, even if in the vast majority of cases it's not enough for an article. They generally only receive routine coverage unless something out of the ordinary happens, but even routine coverage is enough to block a speedy. Smartyllama (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as obvious spam. Advise salting because of the history of recreation on the Swedish Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not relevant, and it doesn't seem like the extravagant claims would be verifiable. /Julle (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and wish we could have moved it to WP:DRAFT space or somewhere instead of forcing getting like 8 people to waste time on it. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:12, 19 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 20:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of fork bombs[edit]

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

Not a notable subject (fork bombs are notable, but a list of examples isn't). Page was apparently created to end a content dispute / editing war at the main fork bombs page, but we ar not a list of code snippets, and the problems of another page should be solved at that page, not by creating forks (sorry). Fram (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as Fram says, a list of examples is not notable, and all this one shows is what looping constructs look like in different languages. There might be a reason to include one example in Fork bomb but certainly not a list, and the title is not a plausible search term, so a redirect would not be appropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no way to just "include one example" at the main page -- it's been tried several times, and every single time, it resulted in language fanboys swooping in and adding "just one more". You'll never get anyone to agree on the one (no, it should be two / what are you talking about, these three languages are the best / hay guys what about $ESOLANG) example that gets included there.

Perhaps the solution is to delete this page as per nom, include zero examples at the main page, and include an external link to a page where people can look up example. (Except then everyone will want to add just one more link to their favorite site...) 180.39.86.69 (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: How about including a few examples in most notable programming languages with respect to the topic and not allowing to add any more? This is how it's done in the articles in other languages.

This is what I wrote on the talk page:

I created the article because there was a war between editors about the readability vs. informativeness and understandability of the original article. I further explained this on the talk page. The article originally included some examples and, IMHO, it made the article more easily understandable because they illustrated the point exactly, but then the example list grew and the article became more and more cluttered and unreadable. I cleaned it up several times, but people were still adding and removing the examples (as seen in the history page I provided above). My solution was to create a separate page about it, similar to what's done in the articles about other fields. Also, if you check out the interwiki links, the vast majority of articles in other languages have examples included.

— Giorgi Gzirishvili (T · C), 21:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge/redirect to appropriate section of fork bomb).

I partially disagree with the nomination. If the only policy reasons to not include a lengthy list of examples in the main article was cluttering, then a WP:SIZESPLIT would warrant a separate article even if the subsubject was not notable.

However, there is a policy reason not to include a lengthy list of examples. If editors of fork bomb cannot agree on a few languages (I would say at most three) to put, then too bad, we will have zero examples. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: The point is, there has been no debate on this topic; 180.15.182.119 just blanked the section after writing on the talk page. Thanks for noting about WP:AVOIDSPLIT § Non-notable topics; agreed. — Giorgi Gzirishvili (T · C), 19:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, a sizesplit may never be done if the resulting new article is on a subject that is in itself not notable. This simply means that the split should be undone and the material trimmed, as it is a case of WP:UNDUE (you have too much information to keep it in the main article, even though not enough significant attention has been given to the separate subject? Then summarize, don't split). A split article should be on a notable topic (say, a specific battle split of from a larger war article), or a list of mainly notable topics (like a discography split of from an artist article: if none or only one of the albums are notable, then a separate discography page is probably not warranted: but if you have five or ten notable albums, then a discography list of albums is a good split). Fram (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for a supporting policy quote proved me I was wrong. My apologies. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Fram (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTHOWTO is relevant here but more importantly, there's no indication that any of these examples are notable. The generalized list of sources at the end just links to example code snippets. There's no assertion that any one code snippet has been used in, say, a notable DDoS attack or anything. Bare programming examples are not notable without context to establish why they are significant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:07, 23 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goatgyan[edit]

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

Non notable company whose article reads like an advertisement. No reliable sources have covered the company and all the data is sourced from their own website. Fails WP:GNG let alone WP:CORPDEPTH Jupitus Smart 08:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advertorial, no indication of notability. "Most searched web portal for goat farming in India", my favourite phrase of the day :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:) Jupitus Smart 18:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero hits on Google News is quite an achievement! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article whose text is setting out the firm's wares, but without a sustainable claim to encyclopaedic notability. Searches are turning up nothing beyond routine listings. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. I removed most of the article as it was spam, unreferenced and WP is not a PR platform. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:57, 16 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. As G11, pure advertising. Sandstein 08:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goldmund[edit]

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

Appears to be an unsourced advertisment. No independent sources and searches reveal almost all advertising and individual blog type product reviews. Nothing notable about the company. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:31, 12 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Powerplus Group[edit]

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

A second article on the same non-notable company. Taken the two together, it clearly shows a promotional campaign. The only other activity of the contributor is trying to insert the company name in a large number of articles. see the COInoticeboard, [36]

Clearly an undeclared paid editor, continuing as such despite multiple warnings. 'We ought to have a speedy criteria for such cases. DGG' ( talk ) 07:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & salt Persistent spam from a WP:SPA. Cabayi (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly created by an employee of the company for promotional purposes, and Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion. And yes, the sooner we have a speedy deletion criterion to cover this kind of thing, the better. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the other article from the same editor is under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powerpac International. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious WP:SOAPBOX. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obvious WP:PROMO, with nothing to fill WP:GNG. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Utter spam. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obvious spam is obvious. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:40, 14 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Royal Rumble participants[edit]

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

Including a "participants" section in Royal Rumble seems unnecessary, because listing individuals who took part in the match under different gimmicks (personas) once is a total maintenance nightmare to update the Rumble participants across all/most recent matches. With that being said, why is there a separate List of Royal Rumble participants, if there are no sources that confirm it? I'm surprised that this wasn't deleted sooner. Nickag989^talk 07:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nickag989^talk 07:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a bunch of listcruft with no real purpose. MPJ-DK 11:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't think merely participating is something that needs to be documented this way. McPhail (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simple participants aren't notable, winners are though. This is just listcruft.LM2000 (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason to have article, agree with LM it's just listcruft. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else (and per Broken Matt Hardy, because someone has to make the joke). oknazevad (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Listcruft. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - listcruft. Nikki♥311 22:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, it's getting chilly in here. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 17:44, 17 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Powerpac International[edit]

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

nonnotable manufacturing company. The see also's are a list of the actually notable manufacturers in the field. See WP:EINSTEIN. Previously speedy deleted twice as advertising, but the promotional elements have been removed in this version. See adjacent AfD for information about the contributor. DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & salt Persistent spam from a WP:SPA. Cabayi (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly created by an employee of the company for promotional purposes, and Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion. And yes, the sooner we have a speedy deletion criterion to cover this kind of thing, the better. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the other article from the same editor is under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powerplus Group. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious WP:SOAPBOX. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obvious spam is obvious. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:39, 14 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 Procedural close. Deletion is not being proposed here, and so this is the wrong venue. If you want to propose a merger, do so at the article talk page. Keep in mind that a spinoff article is not necessarily a problem. You need to demonstrate redundancy, and/or NPOV issues, for a merger to make sense. Vanamonde (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rape in the Kashmir conflict[edit]

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

This article, created on 19 April violates WP:SYNTH and shares its origins with Rape in Jammu and Kashmir, which was redirected and merged to Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir after consensus.

I and Fowler have observed that this article is a fork of Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Kashmir,[37] and was created without expanding these existing article.

WP:CFORK:

A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view (including undue weight), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. All POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.

Exactly, this fork article has been target of gross POV pushing, anyone can view history of article and confirm that it happens just every single day that one editor removes all reliably sourced(Routledge, Oxford) information about rapes in Pakistan Kashmir(WP:CENSOR, WP:IDONTLIKEIT) even after knowing that Kashmir under Pakistan is part of Kashmir conflict, and then other editor would argue how sources about Kashmir Conflict doesn't mention rape in Pakistan, when dozens of them do.[38][39][40]

For ceasing such disruption, page move took place, and there was no consensus to change the title thus article was reverted to original title. But that was not the end, now a couple of editors, who didn't had their preferred page title are hoping another page move request in place of dropping the stick, just because they don't want to deny Pakistan to be a part of Kashmir conflict, yet continue censor information about incidents in Pakistan. As such, POV pushing and edit warring never ends.

Not to mention this article has been unnecessarily expanded, for example the whole laundry list of non-notable incidents.

Since the article includes about 35 sources,(per this version) it could be redirected and merged with Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Kashmir. These 3 articles are still small. Capitals00 (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Support redirect and merge to Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Kashmir as proposer. Capitals00 (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as proposer. I already have the copy of the article saved on sandbox since last week and the title of this article is being frequently disputed by other editors on talk page even after no consensus on page move, I believe that delete is the only fair option. Any important content can be drawn from sandbox. Capitals00 (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The topic of conflict rape and sexual violence in Indian administered Kashmir during the insurgency since 1989 is a notable topic which is discussed in numerous reliable sources. As such it satisfies the requirement of WP:GNG. This topic is about a particular form of war crime which is different in scope to other human rights abuses. This article is like other articles such as Rape during the Bosnian War, Rape during the occupation of Japan and so on. Topic has been given coverage in so many important and reputable sources that its a stand-alone topic. (example from women’s rights director at Human Rights Watch. - Human Rights Watch first documented sexual violence in conflict in 1993 when we published a report about how Indian security forces in Kashmir used rape to brutalise women and punish their communities, accused of sympathizing with separatist militants. Since then, we have investigated and documented rape in conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Colombia, Somalia, Iraq, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea, and Haiti.Since that first report, the international community has made significant progress in recognizing the prevalence of sexual violence and taken steps to address it: rape in conflict is prosecuted as a war crime and a crime against humanity^[1]).

The users on the talkpage were also in the midst of a consensus-building discussion when this RFC was filed. Problematics (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Gerntholtz, Liesl. "It's Not Just About Sexual Violence". Huffington Post UK.

Close AfD is a forum for deletion and deletion is not here being proposed. Thincat (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since my name has been mentioned in the statement of the RfC (without my consent), I am making a comment. It is true that I had originally supported a merger, but I subsequently withdrew from the process. I really have no wish to go back. It is also true that the creators of the "Rape in Kashmir <whatever>" page have overstepped their mandate. However, the Indian government is not innocent either, having committed gross human rights abuses in Kashmir, which very likely include rape and murder. I will let the POV warriors on both sides duke it out. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 08:51, 12 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Krishnan[edit]

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

Notability Wikibaji (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage which makes sense because he made his film debut this year. SL93 (talk) 21:33, 12 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Thomas[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to have never played in a professional league. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:06, 12 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 Venn diagram. Consensus for not keeping the page. Since the REFUND requester has asked for redirection, userfication would not be helpful. Previous article history can still be accessed with a redirect. (non-admin closure) f e minist 14:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnston diagram[edit]

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

Unsourced and unsourceable — both Google scholar and Google books have zero relevant hits for this concept. It was successfully prodded in 2009 by Hans Adler with the rationale "Original research. Name is only used by Johnston himself, the owner of a dubious website and creator of this article. See talk page for details." but at the request of matthiaspaul it has been restored by Anachronist. Matthiaspaul's request [41] did not ask for it to be placed in article space, only to look at its contents while working on something related. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia now any more than it did earlier. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to User:Matthiaspaul/Johnston diagram. I should have done that in the first place when I restored it, but now that we're at AFD, it's best to let the community decide. Matthiaspaul can always request a WP:U1 deletion when he's done with it. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Matthiaspaul/Johnston diagram. Thank you for notifying me; I turned the article into a PDF file and downloaded it in case I get nostalgic about the old days. The article has no references, which is not how it should be. Perhaps these so-called "Johnston diagrams" would be more appropriately called "logical Venn diagrams". Looking up "logical Venn diagrams" on Google Images turns up as first hit: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Venn-diagram and as second hit: https://www.jeffreythompson.org/blog/2010/04/18/logic-gates-as-venn-diagrams/. By the way, searching "isomorphism between sets and propositions" turns up page 85 of the book Foundation Discrete Mathematics for Computing by Dexter J. Booth. The Britannica article on Venn diagrams explains that Venn diagrams had always been about logic, from their very inception; so what is all this about Johnston diagrams being the application of Venn diagrams to logic? Searching for "P T Johnstone diagrams" yields a book cover with the title Notes on logic and set theory by P. T. Johnstone and also another book cover: Set Theory and Logic (Dover Books on Mathematics) by Robert R. Stoll. Here is some paper on The Stone Representation Theorem for Boolean Algebras by Matthew Dirks, which mentions Peter T. Johnstone in its references. The paper states in its abstract: "The Stone Representation Theorem for Boolean Algebras, first proved by M. H. Stone in 1936 ([4]), states that every Boolean algebra is isomorphic to a field of sets." Well, enough of such coincidences or seeming coincidences (pareidolia?)... back to what the Britannica article is saying about Venn diagrams. It looks like the mainstream mathematics community calls as Venn diagrams what R. Johnston calls "Johnston diagrams", so any information in the article Johnston diagram that might be worth salvaging could be moved to the article on Venn diagram. —AugPi _(t) 09:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And Boolean algebra is the Lindenbaum–Tarski algebra of propositional calculus, so between Stone's representation theorem and the Lindenbaum–Tarski algebra concept, that should be enough to establish a link between set theory and propositional logic. But that is the logical side; the visual side is the Venn diagrams. Enough said. —AugPi _(t) 10:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While there are several places in the web mentioning Johnston diagrams as some kind of "Venn diagram for logic", none of those I saw actually discusses the origin of the term. At least since 2001 the main source of this appears to be Russell Johnston's site LogicTutorial (British Columbia), where these diagrams are also called exclusion diagrams (per http://logictutorial.com/). They seem to refer to earlier work conducted back in 1987. As Russell Johnston dedicated his site to the work of his father Wesley Johnston and John King Farlow (per http://www.logictutorial.com/meaning%20of%20life.html), apparently philosophers as well, it is also possible, that the 1987 work is related to one of them (if this helps to locate primary sources).

The German Wikipedia also has a larger section on Johnston diagrams in de:Mengendiagramm. This was added by Austrian de:User:GottschallCh in 2005 ([42]). Since he is no longer active in Wikipedia, but can be easily found in the net ([43]), I was about to write him an e-mail asking for his sources, but it got delayed due to my lack of time.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page ([44]), however, seems to indicate that Russell Johnston started discussing "meaning as exclusion" in the late 1980s himself.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redir to Venn diagram. Unless more sources can be found, I suggest to replace the article by a redirect to Venn diagram, as I already proposed for this case when asking for the article to be undeleted ([45]). Optionally, the redirect could be tagged with an Rcat such as "R from misnomer" if this would be found necessary. Redirecting this has several advantages over deleting it:

Even if unsourced, there are enough mentionings of the term in the web for users to expect some further info on this topic to be found in Wikipedia. Running into a red link is not helpful for them. Using a redirect, we'd at least direct users to the closely related Venn diagram article. As redirects do not need to meet the same notability criteria as articles, but just need to be "useful", this would be perfectly in line with the purpose of redirects per WP:REDIR.
The edit history remains intact, so it remains transparent for anyone why the redirect was created and what was the previous contents - I hate seeing good faith contributions (like AugPi's) being destroyed and the statistics of contributing editors being weakened by avoidable deletions - it's like a slap in the face of constructive editors. Also, if better sources would be found in the future or previous contents turn out to be useful to be incorporated into other articles, it is easy to extract them from the history, whereas contents deleted in AfDs is typically lost forever (and thus effectively wasted energy), as only admins can still see it and almost noone would ask for undeletion of an article deleted in a prior AfD discussion.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Venn diagram. Some of the content can be merged into the §Related concepts part of that page. XOR'easter (talk) 16:08, 15 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:A2. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nastavení komunikace v Arma 3[edit]

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

Whatever this is, it doesn't add value to Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted this as an A2 of cs:Addony Arma 3: it's just elaborating on the add on, and is more or less a how to to create save files for said game. Off to a meeting now. Lectonar (talk) 07:07, 12 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 as G3 hoax. TimothyJosephWood 15:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Lawton Museum[edit]

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

Unverifiable. Google search turns up no hits on a Lawton museum in Minnesota (only one in Oklahoma). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Looks like a WP:HOAX. Uncle Roy (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no evidence that this museum exists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quick Delete as WP:HOAX. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - as G3 hoax. No indication it exists at all, and google maps shows what is apparently an unremarkable residence with no signage whatsoever to indicate anything other than a private residence. TimothyJosephWood 13:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DoneDlohcierekim (talk) 15:30, 12 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erling Braut Håland[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator based on an unverified claim that the Norwegian second division is fully professional. (See WP:FPL.) Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails the written standard. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article says he currently plays for Molde FK, a top-division club, and provides a source. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To meet the relevant notability guideline, a footballer must have actually played (i.e. in an actual match) in a fully pro league. While Haland is signed to Molde, he has yet to play for them. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the article now seems unnecessary, I *presume* he is going to play when the season starts, and then the page would be re-created. If he doesn't play by October, delete it then? Power~enwiki (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because we don't create articles in anticipation of notability. Otherwise you could create an article on anything on the promise that it will be notable in the future. This player has done nothing to be notable yet, he may do in the future, he may not. If he does then the article can be readily restored. Fenix down (talk) 09:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. As at the moment, he's apparently not played a game for his current club, which means he's not yet met the second criterion for NFOOTY. The season seems to be underway, so there's every chance he will do, but right at the moment he's just below the bar, rather than above it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Hasn't actually played in a fully-professional league yet... Giant Snowman 07:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. A case of WP:TOOSOON, subject will be notable per NFOOTY once / if he plays for Molde. Fenix down (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article was created (by me) and its deletion contested on the assumption that the Norwegian First Division was indeed a fully-professional competition, as its page stated. It appears it cannot be verified to be so. If it isn't, then the player indeed does not meet WP:FPL and the page should be deleted. Psychotic17 (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - The Eliteserien (football) is the top division in football in Norway, the Norwegian First Division is the second division. I retract my earlier "Keep" vote. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Seems to be WP:TOOSOON because of subject's age, article can easily be recreated if and when subject meets the aforementioned requirements. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:38, 15 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.

Al Hallak[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with no prejudice against a redirect if suitable target is found. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trusted Storage specification[edit]

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

Fails GNG - No secondaries in 9 years.

"ISO 18759" no book hits. Quick search didn't find a secondary. Seems still under development. Widefox; talk 13:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A further search on "Trusted Storage specification" gives [46] [47] [48] page 384 [49] but they aren't the "WORM" topic, so seems spec may be out there, but not an ISO standard yet. May be WP:TOOSOON, WP:TNT, or just needs rewrite.
Note: The title has been usurped with a new topic - original article was a different topic "FDE" [50] (now this article refers to a completely different "WORM" topic) [51], which may be notable unlike the current topic.

. Widefox; talk 13:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Enova_Technology_Corp. Widefox; talk 14:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

REVIEW THE ISO PROGRAM OF WORK AND YOU WILL NOTICE THIS ARTICLE DESCRIBES THE CONCEPT OF TRUSTWORTHY WORM....PLEASE ASSIGN A MODERATOR WHO AT LEAST UNDERSTANDS WHAT ANSI AND ISO STANDARDS MEAN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.105.104.178 (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
THE AUTHOR OF THIS DOCUMENT WHO IS ALSO THE ISO PROJECT EDITOR DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE PROPOSED DELETIONItalic text OF THIS ARTICLE. THE ISO PROGRAM HAS BEEN TRYING TO GET THIS BASIC INFORMATION CORRECTED ON WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT SUCCESSS FOR OVER 2 YEARS.
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE HELP !!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.105.104.178 (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, for help, please see Wikipedia:HELP. Widefox; talk 17:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems this specification has been under development for at least nine years. This article can wait until the International Standard is published, if that ever happens. At this time, it is WP:CBALL. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope User:Jacknstock. I thought that, until I discovered that the original "FDE" topic (~10 years ago) has been overwritten by a new "WORM" topic (as yet unpublished) - I've clarified that above. Widefox; talk 16:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It still seems to be a proposal that has not been finalized over a period of 10 years. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what it is, it appears to be a press release / commercial whitepaper which turned into a section of their website? Widefox; talk 17:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to ISO 18759. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per my nom, that's a different topic, which is even less notable. (see below). Widefox; talk 16:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've restored the original article topic about "FDE" [52] to clarify. Please note that is a different topic (nothing to do with WORM / ISO 18759. The COI editor usurped that article to write the WORM / ISO 18759 one, instead of creating a new article. I discovered that they're two topics only after listing here, but this original topic at least has/had a draft published ref (now dead) and ~~may be~~ isn't salvageable. (update - it's just a press release) Widefox; talk 17:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion - TCG has used this article as their PR sandbox. Widefox; talk 18:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. There's a case to made for salting the title after all the messing about, but it's probably preferable to make redirects from this title to Trusted Computing Group and from ISO 18759 to List of International Organization for Standardization standards. Would someone ask the IP to stop shouting? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, redirect to TCG and semi-protecting would be good. ISO 18759 appears to not be a standard yet, and without a single source I'd suggest leaving rather than redirecting/misdirecting. Widefox; talk 17:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TNT. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A Google search on [ "Momentus" "Trusted Computing Group" ] brings up various sources that mention this. Should we consider a redirect to Opal Storage Specification? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is Opal SS the final name of this early spec? (i.e. is it a merge target) Widefox; talk 21:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so, but maybe I am reading it wrong.

"What is the Opal SSC? ... The Opal SSC specification is based on the Trusted Storage Architecture Core Specification Version 1.0 Revision 1.0"

Source: https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/wp-content/uploads/Opal_SSC_1.0_FAQ_final.pdf

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's good enough merge target for me! (digging around for a 10 year old spec, only to find it's just a PR did a patience overflow). Widefox; talk 21:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, borders on an A1 - not a lot there. South Nashua (talk) 21:04, 17 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) 09:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Hayfield[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Found no sources for establishing notability, so this person fails WP:NBIO, as tagged since August 2008. Both former AfDs were closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have come to have a better grasp of the guidelines for notability since I did in 2014 when I voted to merge the article, which somehow created no consensus that left the article in place. There is nothing here that is a 3rd party source about Hayfield, indepth or otherwise. They are just directory listings. In fact it is unclear what the source is for the career information listed in the article. This is basically an unsourced artilce on a living person, with some pseudo-sources added on. It has been tagged with BLP concerns for 9 years which have not been addressed. High time to delete an article with no potential for being sourced in any way. If as was claimed in the 2007 deletion discussion she was the "editor-in-chief of a well known magazine" where are the sources to show this. She may have passed notability criteria back in 2007, but in the last 10 years we have realized out notability criteria started out too loose, and she does not pass them now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails simplest of WP standards for notability. Cllgbksr (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just added 5 reviews of her first novel to the page (Washington Post, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, and 2 form the New York Times - the Times does that quite often) The problem with this AfD is rampant PRESENTISM. Editors seem to think that if someone doesn't come to the top of a google search, they must be notable. There are lots more sources on this writer/editor. Including sources on her work as an editor and discussions of her novels published years after the novels came out. And all I did was run a single search on "Nancy Hayfield" at the proquest news archive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to User:NorthAmerica and User:Peacent, the editors who closed those previous AfDs as "no consensus". With 2 novels out by major publishing houses, it's a pity no one ever sourced it, but at times we seem so short of editors that the WP:CREATIVE we keep are the self-promoters, while writers who get rave reviews but abide by our disparagement of self-promotion get dragged to AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the reviews E.M. Gregory has turned up, this passes WP:NAUTHOR #3. I've added a ref and another piece of career info as well. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. clearly meets the standards for authors. Another instance showing the need to follow WP:BEFORE DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per E.M.Gregory's findings; subject meets WP:NAUTHOR. Gongshow talk 03:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent article improvements. Passes WP:AUTHOR with multiple non trivial reviews of the works. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable but in a trivial sense and Wikipedia is not a newspaper or UFO magazine. Kierzek (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although her later, UFO-related work has some notability and belongs on the page, notability is established by her early literary novels.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources shown above show notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while I think JackPackLambert's comments have merit, I believe that that the notability criteria have been met by the sourcing provided by E.M. Gregory. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:47, 20 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. Please note that WP:WITHDRAWN does not give the nominator the ability to withdraw a nomination if there are comments in favor of deletion. This AfD is closed on grounds of consensus favoring keep, and nothing more. Kurykh (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charleston Conference[edit]

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

Fails GNG and EVENT. Nothing immediately noticeable on Google News, didn't see any external coverage on their website. If someone can find some more external claims to notability, I will withdraw my nom. Figured this one deserved more than a prod. South Nashua (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG. I could not locate any additional external claims of notability. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's coverage out there. Library publications cover the conference regularly (Library Journal, American Libraries) as well as local publications (Charleston City Paper). The conference is purposefully a low-key affair, and doesn't garner a lot of press, but it is well-regarded in the library world. The Interior (Talk) 16:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
South Nashua, it looks like there are three independent sources in the article now. Do you want to withdraw this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @WhatamIdoing: Sure, works for me. Sorry if I jumped the gun here, glad I was wrong and this article could be saved. South Nashua (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per persuasive WP:HEYMANN by User:The Interior.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nom has withdrawn this (see "glad I was wrong and this article could be saved"). Why did you relist it again? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 17 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. So Why 11:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Dein[edit]

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

The following copied from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Julius Dein. Eagleash (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think this article should be keep bcoz nowadays there is a lot of people who became famous on Facebook, 6 million followers is not a big amount, there is too many people who have more than 10 million/15 million followers and its possible to get paid followers/fake followers. If this article is able to be keep so all of other facebook star should add on the encyclopedia, Pls make an case about Julius Dein" This comment added by nominator 119.30.35.180.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. GNG very clearly met by this person. Obviously no evidence of WP:BEFORE, this nomination has absolutely no chance of success. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A lot of those references are the Daily Mail! (talk)Quetzal1964 15:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 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 01:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of the coverage is from short tabloid news stories but there are more detailed analytical pieces.[53][54][55] Meets WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't necessarily believe what you read in the Daily Mail is true, but I do believe it talks about this man on a regular basis. Er, actually, no. I believe their website talks about this man on a regular basis. I'm not sure if the print edition does. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as not all of the sources are from the Daily Mail, it's not much of a concern. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:13, 13 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Asian Australian communities[edit]

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

This article is entirely unencyclopedic. There are "Asian" communities in every suburb of Australia, but this article has no criteria for exclusion or inclusion. It also has no obvious purpose.--Grahame (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC) Grahame (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No criteria for inclusion on this list. WWGB (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose or Merge I believe this article needs a change in name such as to "List of cities and regions with large Asian Australian communities" and should focus on major communities as the article already does. I also believe that if it is going to be deleted the article should then be merged into Asian Australians. List of U.S. communities with Asian-American majority populations, List of U.S. cities with large Hispanic populations and List of U.S. communities with Native American majority populations exist, so why can't this? (58.164.98.231 (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

— 58.164.98.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — I am 58.164.98.231 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I am a dynamic IP user and have made many edits in regards to this topic however, based on the IP I used to publish my stance on the issue, it appears to be that I have not. I have been told that the previous note on IP address needs to appear here for clarity.

I don't think there's anything to merge, since there's nothing reliably sourced here. Also, I note that List of U.S. communities with Asian-American majority populations has been tagged for notability for six years! That's the problem with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. St Anselm (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, List of U.S. communities with Asian-American majority populations has a clear inclusion criterion: 50% Asian-American per census data. St Anselm (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. If such a list as mentioned above is possible, this is not it. None of the references suggest any particular location has a "large" Asian community; the best they do is indicate "above average". E.g. Ultimo, New South Wales has 17.6% Chinese-born. That seems high, certainly above average, but the source doesn't indicate it's a "major Asian community". Do we work on percentages? If so, what is the cut-off? 10%? 20%? 50%? 80%? This list doesn't tell us. St Anselm (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: Okay I understand what you're saying but really "none of the sources" so I'm assuming you have read the entire book, Christmas Island: An Anthropological Study? (58.164.98.231 (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Delete, largely per StAnselm. I'll also point out the fact that Sunnybank, Queensland (which admittedly is only 15.1% Chinese-born and 7.1% Taiwan-born, per its article) isn't listed, despite it being "the new Chinatown" according to a great many Brisbane foodie types, to say nothing of Chinatown, Brisbane being only a precinct of Fortitude Valley, Queensland (only 2.2% Chinese-born). And so on. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete no criteria for inclusion as others have said plus bordering on original research. So the whole city of Darwin is an Asian community? LibStar (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR Power~enwiki (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Asian Australians. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as discussed above the content inclusion is questionable , so merging something that is disputed is not an option in my opinion. LibStar (talk) 12:33, 13 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samm Hodges[edit]

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

Subject only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added reliable sources. Subject is featured in NYTimes, WSJ as co-creator of show and the voice of main character. Kathrynmhodges (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BLPNOTE. Half the article is about a TV show yet to air, despite its online life. Most of the sources (added by his wife) are about it and not him in particular, as the OP stated. Article was written by someone close to him and/or taken from his website. — Wylie pedia 20:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thes WP:ADVERT as WP:TOOSOON leaving redlink at TV show he wrote that is yet to air. He may be able ot fill it in a year or two. .E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ANYBIO; coverage needs must be WP:PERSISTENT and of WP:DEPTH. This is currently neither, unfortunately. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 06:19, 17 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. Standards on the English Wikipedia are different from those of the Japanese Wikipedia, so just because one Wikipedia has an article does not mean another Wikipedia must also have one. Kurykh (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

X-Day (video game)[edit]

(Find video game sources: "X-Day (video game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

This article has no references to reliable sources, and it doesn't make a claim of notability. It's creator declined PROD without resolving these concerns. KSFT ^(t|c) 12:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to add several sources earlier and reference to the series' soundtrack. Namcokid47~765 20:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namcokid47 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. I tried searching for sources online and came up with nothing useful.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any comments on the sources added after the start of this AfD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found no coverage in reliable video game sources, so this fails WP:NVG. The 3 sources in the article are clearly unreliable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to edit the article so that is explains how the game is played and that I have added several reliable sources. Namcokid47 (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A google search for 余命検索サービス X-DAY gets about 18,400 hits. I wouldn't rule out that there are independent reliable sources among those pages, but the first ten hits do not qualify as independent reliable sources in my opinion and I'm not interested in going through the entire set. Anyway, it's really up to those who wish to keep the page to prove that such sources exist.

I don't know what checks the others have done when they established that there hasn't been any coverage in reliable sources. Given that the article states that the game only was released in Japan, I hope that you didn't only check for coverage in occidental reliable sources. When something only is available in Japan, the vast majority of the coverage is typically in Japanese sources. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is reception, no need for removal. Shaddim (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If by "reception", you mean significant coverage in several reliable, independent sources, could you provide evidence of that? KSFT ^(t|c) 15:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It sounds like the argument wants the article to be deleted because it is poorly written, not for it lacking sources. On a related note, the article clearly states the game was released in Japan, so I'm questioning the individual who nominated the page for deletion if they even searched for Japanese sources on the game since, again, it was only released in Japan. I would further bring up that the Japanese Wikipedia features an article for this game, so there's really no reason for the English Wikipedia to lack a page for it. Namcokid47 (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you assume the article on Japanese Wikipedia should not also be deleted (which is quite an assumption), its existence has no bearing on whether we should have an article for it on English Wikipedia. The rest of your post is just baseless accusations that other editors have not properly searched for sources. Even if your accusations were true, that still wouldn't answer why you can't find any sources to support the article's notability. Wikipedia, an online store listing, and a screenshot do not serve to establish notability; we need to see significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say that I assumed the Japanese Wikipedia shouldn't be deleted? I only stated that it would make sense for the English Wikipedia to have an article that is already on the Japanese Wikipedia, I never said to not delete the JP article. I'm not trying to shame the editors that they should've looked for Japanese sources either, I'm simply stating that since it was only released in Japan, sources from Japan should be used. Namcokid47 (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No evidence of any coverage in reliable secondary sources. Despite a lot of talk (and some weird accusations) nobody has been able to find anything. Reyk _YO! 10:29, 22 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 20:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nayi Disha Studios[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Can't find much beyond trivial coverage, reviews, job listings, etc. bojo | talk 12:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bojo1498: All the added citations are from independent sources with high domain authorities and they already cover the topic in great detail. Still, adding more external links from independent sources about the topic. Requesting you to reconsider the deletion. Nitishrd (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete there is a case to delete as WP:TOOSOON, and funding of roughly US$250000 is not notable on its own. I would not have nominated this article for AfD, though. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gene93k: Have added more independent sources covering the funding newsNitishrd (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- corporate spam / product placement, as in:

"Apart from building kinect camera based learning solutions for preschool classrooms, Nayi disha Studios also builds similar movement based learning games for homes. The company has launched these learning apps for Android and iOS smartphones. [8]"

The rest of the article reads the same way. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All coverage is WP:ROUTINE business announcements, PR, etc. No indication meets WP:CORPDEPTH or otherwise has significant independent coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:55, 23 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Batt[edit]

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

Non-notable food photographer lacking non-trivial support. Article lacks in-depth secondary support. Subject has published a number of books, but they are self-published. reddogsix (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Contesting Deletion by JKDove:

The entry below was written by me (jkdove). I apologize for not signing in with an account. I have corrected this oversight. Please see the following reasons: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkdove (talk • contribs) 22:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Alan Batt is one of the most well-known names in Food Photography and has worked with over 600 (not 500) of The Most Famous Chefs across the globe, including Many Michelin Starred Chefs. In addition to having a permanent exhibit in the Empire State Building for 17 years, he is the founder of The Great Gathering of Chefs and is the yearly photographer for The Cayman Islands Cookout, which includes Chefs Eric Ripert, Anthony Bourdain, Emeril Lagasse, David Burke, Antonio Bachour, and far too many others to list in this contestation. We are adding links to his works and NOTABILITY which have been featured in the NYTimes, New York Post, and several other major publications in New York and other major cities. We ask that we are allowed an additional 48 hours to complete the compilation and properly format the text and images for inclusion in the article. To call him Non-notable is rather insulting, which we're sure his 50K plus followers across several of the most trafficked social media networks would agree. Please allow us the time to include the proper citations and references which will clearly demonstrate that this page belongs firmly in place to recognize a major contributor to an established field adored and regularly consumed (as in content) by untold hundreds of millions around the world. Anyone who believes this man is non-notable should be questioned as to their familiarity on the topic. Did I mention that he also started the Original New York City Firefighters Calendar which is still printed yearly to this day?

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/eats/ny-photographer-celebrates-new-york-bravest-best-chefs-article-1.953001

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/nyregion/new-york-firefighters-calendar-returns.html

http://www.marthastewart.com/938365/childrens-storefront-school-harlem-new-york

http://www.actionagainsthunger.org/event/2011/seventh-annual-great-gathering-chefs

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/restaurants/holiday-gift-guide-ten-presents-for-the-miami-foodie-6585051

http://www.seattletimes.com/pacific-nw-magazine/a-designer-dessert-paired-with-the-proper-brew-puts-the-perfect-point-on-a-meal/

https://chefsroll.com/chef-profile?crurl=AntonioBachour

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/fdny-calendar-2013-sexy-firefighters-charity-photos_n_1471184.html

https://www.foodnewsfeed.com/fsr/employee-management/new-twist-culinary-class

http://www.antonio-bachour.com/bachour-publications

http://www.starchefs.com/events/great_gathering/index.shtml

UPDATE: MAY 7 - I asked that I be allowed an additional 48 hours. I am requesting an additional 48 hours (Until Wednesday, May 10) to allow for full review of all policies pertaining to each of the policies cited in refutation of this page's validity, ie WP:CREATIVE etc. If I have not proven the viability of this entry, I'll delete it myself. Thank you for this consideration and your patience. It is greatly appreciated.

ADDENDUM: In response to Gene93k, he clearly does not fail under Item 4. To name just one for now, there are quite a few others for which I am locating the citations, is the photography exhibit at the Empire State Building, which was on "permanent display" for 17 years. http://www.thenonprofittimes.com/news-articles/a-real-page-turner/

Item 4, WP: Creative - The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) ^{has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention}, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

ADDENDUM: MAY 10, 2017 - I'm working on gaining access to LexusNexus, which I believe I have though I have to travel to a nearby university to use the local machines there for access. Additionally, I am in contact with a source from one of the more trafficked and highly reputable journalist/media organizations (TV news channels) in New York, New York as a source for reputable citations on several points listed. Additionally, I have spoken to Public Relations rep at the Empire State Building in New York to gain access to official material to use a citation to establish his notability and credibility in the field of Food Photography as that was the focal point his 17 Year exhibit. I understand that I am running out of the time that I requested ... best I can say is that I'm working on it and now awaiting return contacts from the sources for citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkdove (talk • contribs) 22:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkdove (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, he clearly fails WP:CREATIVE. Commercial photographer, though with some notability, but without any exhibitions, without books, which are not self published and and without comprehensive independent reviews. It's a Delete. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep these appear to be "coffee-table books", which primarily have artistic value rather than literary value. Some appear to be contract work or are self-published, but I see enough "book tour" publicity to justify keeping the article for now. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete We have a SPA asking for time to do basic research to establish notability? Anmccaff (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sufficient WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:CREATIVE. Some of his projects have garnered local (NY, NY) press attention, so it is possible that it is merely WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG, nor WP:CREATIVE. I might have agreed with E.M.Gregory about WP:TOOSOON, but the person's been doing this for well over a decade. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:41, 20 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brito Sozinho[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. the limited coverage merely confirms he held the post. Ambassadors are not inherently notable LibStar (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google search turned up scant results. Not everyone included here is notable. Quis separabit? 15:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given that ambassadors are not inherently notable, I believe this one is. His multiple appointments to Angola's top allies in Europe and Africa indicate his importance to Angolan diplomacy. That he received Guinea-Bissau's highest honor is another indication. Given the linguistic and cultural deficiencies that are widely documented within Wikipedia, namely that non-Western and non-English speaking people are significantly under researched on here, I am inclined to support and continue searching for more references in Portuguese language sources.--TM 19:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've added another reference from a book on oil politics in Angola which indicates that he is among the wealthiest and most powerful operators in his country, which only reinforces my belief that the article should be kept.--TM 19:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In 2011, he received the National Order of Merit from Guinea-Bissau [56] satisfying WP:ANYBIO. Pburka (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - unlinked award per AbstractIllusions' comment below. Pburka (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ANYBIO doesn't apply ~~(wikilink ↑ is to the wrong country)~~ fixed. If you can't get a list of most winners of an award then it doesn't qualify under ANYBIO (note: I tried various Portuguese translations but couldn't find one that told me anything about the award. English google has nothing). Searched Newsbank (144 hits) and LexisNexis (0 hits) for the ambassador. There is only one article in that stack that has any content that rises above WP:ROUTINE. The risk of a poor or libelous article that is not well-tended outweighs the positives of representing someone from outside the West. In a world with press parity, would there be sufficient sources for notability? Probably. But right now, I couldn't find sourcing that indicated he does not approach GNG and the award comes nowhere near ANYBIO. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say "If you can't get a list of most winners of an award then it doesn't qualify under ANYBIO"? Guinea-Bissau is a small, very poor, non-English speaking country. Should we just ignore those whom they honor because our search engines are insufficient and further Wikipedia's WP:BIAS?--TM 23:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's bias is not created in a vacuum. The best thing you can do to combat it is support African news sources. I subscribe to a number of newspapers throughout West Africa. The criteria at WP:ANYBIO is "well-known and significant award". Hence, if those who win it are not regularly announced in media sources it is neither "well-known" nor "significant" and certainly not both. Quality sourcing is always the best response to bias on wikipedia, and I'm not sure that Ambassador Sozinho meets the criteria. (Further note: like always, I search local news sources and could not find any Guinea-Bissau news reports on the Ambassador winning the award on Gazeta de Noticias, Guine-Bissau, or Bissau-Digital. So, it isn't even that well documented in the local press, as limited as it is. I understand why the official Angolan news agency would like to highlight winning the award, but national press didn't which makes the case that it is a well-known or significant award very difficult to make). AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Historically, ambassadors are often notable for their business career, rather than their diplomatic position. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

only 1 source has been provided for his business career. LibStar (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This answer doesn't even make sense. 1. The vast majority of ambassadors worldwide are career diplomats and have NO PRIOR BUSINESS CAREER. 2. Why would a successful businessperson be notable? Some are if they receive coverage in RSs, some aren't. See: LibStar's comment above. 3. This answer does not support the notability of Ambassador Sozinho, but a general notability of ambassadors. Once again, it is wrong on its reasoning and seems dramatically incorrect in this instance. The fact that Sozinho has gone to multiple countries and not just one post seems to directly refute his notability based on other criteria. If you think Ambassador Sozinho is notable, please make that case. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's been an ambassador to 8 countries, it may be that his role in the Angolan government should be considered equivalent to a secretary of State, rather than one of 200+ ambassadors. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no, no...no. Georges Rebelo Chicoti is the equivalent to the Secretary of State of Angola. Ambassador Sozinho is a career diplomat with some oil holdings. If you have sources to show that he qualifies by WP:GNG, I would like to see them (and would change my vote accordingly). Otherwise, I think making false equivalences is not helping me get a fuller picture of whether this should be a keep or not. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's useful information. I retract my vote and remain neutral. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - career diplomat who has held the highest office (ambassador with full powers) to eight different nations. That makes hims more than run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 22 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 Blue hole (disambiguation). Multiple comments correctly point out that notability is not inherited and thus is not a valid reason for deletion. While a majority supported redirecting to one of the games, VDZ's comment swayed later !voters and there have been no more !votes supporting a redirect to the game instead of the disambig-page. Regards So Why 11:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bluehole Inc.[edit]

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

Procedural nomination, per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 24#Bluehole Inc.. Was previously redirected then restored multiple times. f e minist 10:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. f e minist 10:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. f e minist 10:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. f e minist 10:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & salt -- promotional with no indications of significance; persistent recreation. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Hi, look up the news for the company, then you may realize that it is indeed a significant one. Or can you explain why it wouldn't? Thanks.prokaryotes (talk) 12:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Developer responsible for one of the most successful game titles this year, that is significant enough. Article need references and more content. Recent news http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/05/02/playerunknowns-battlegrounds-hits-2-million-copies-sold prokaryotes (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Salt Point it back to PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUND, the current reason for the flurry of activity. There are no reliable sources discussing the company itself at this time with any indepth coverage. Notability of PUBG is well established, but company's do not inherent notability from their products. Fails WP:NCORP, essentially. -- ferret (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a non-notable developer failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources focused on the subject, in particular WP:NCORP. The game is notable, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Company coverage is particular evident with heavily sourcing from Game designer Brendan Greene aka PlayerUnknown, part of Bluehole. Recent articles in RS discuss Bluehole revenue, charities etc. Imho, 6.5/10 keep.prokaryotes (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Korean article on BH http://www.4gamer.net/games/362/G036262/20161109069/ prokaryotes (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of article covering the company in foreign language. prokaryotes (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing covering Brendan Greene leads to him being notable, not Bluehole. Much like Bluehole doesn't inherit notability from it's products, it doesn't inherit it from it's employees. The 4gamer article appears to basically be a press release announcing a deal to produce a game, which is covered under WP:ORGIND. -- ferret (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ORGID states press releases. The problem here seems to be that a lot of coverage is in foreign language. The company is well known for games, reaching a wide audience. prokaryotes (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Lack of sourcing to meet the WP:GNG itself - any sources shown so far seem to focus on video games created by the company, rather than the company itself. I'd also recommend creating articles in the draft space in the future. Even if this was a notable company, its far from ready for the mainspace. There's virtually zero content. You shouldn't have entire sections that merely say "N/A", for example. Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~to PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds.~~ As noted by others, sourcing on the company itself seems to be lacking. The suggested salting may be wise, but I won't outright vote for that as I have little experience with salted articles and thus may not have proper consideration for the consequences.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - While I don't really care either way whether the page itself stays or not, I don't think redirecting to PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds is proper as the developer also has another very well-known game, Tera. I noticed this article was up for deletion after browsing from the Tera page to the Bluehole page, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who's more familiar with Tera than PUBG; having the company name redirect to PUBG would be very confusing for people who aren't aware they're from the same company (which to me felt quite surprising). VDZ (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any opinions regarding VDZ's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - There isn't an article here, except in the games themselves. Anmccaff (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with VDZ that it would be confusing to redirect the article to PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds when Tera (video game) is also an equally notable game. Maybe redirect the article to Blue hole (disambiguation) and provide there wikilinks to both games? --Mika1h (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect Despite the title being incorrect (it should actually include a comma), the entity is not notable in any way, and I doubt that the content is anywhere near encyclopedic. Lordtobi (✉) 12:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking my original comment as there has been some cleanup done, and I believe that there should be enough sources to build a proper start-class article (and maybe have specific coverage pop up later): Keep. Lordtobi (✉) 08:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - What sources? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
VDZ made a good point, and I approve of Mika1h's suggestion to redirect to the disambiguation page instead. Makes more sense than redirecting to either of the games, at least. Striking out that part of my vote.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:10, 21 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) 09:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Jay Center[edit]

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

Campus building at Robert Morris University. Article cites no sources, and apparently has not done so since its creation. Per article, building was once the school's primary indoor athletic facility, but is no longer so; and has a capacity of 1,000, which doesn't make it sound like it was a major sports venue. Google search for ("john jay center" "robert morris") turns up passing mentions but no in-depth coverage; Google News search for the same terms yields only six hits, none of which provide sufficient coverage to establish notability. Unless all college basketball facilities are automatically considered notable, this appears to fail WP:GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consensus is that Division I college basketball venues are notable, and this was once a Division I college basketball venue. It no longer is, but Notability is not temporary. So it's still notable. Smartyllama (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Smartyllama, and also because sources are apparent in searches. Google, for example, shows several sources about the arena from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette at Newspapers.com. Unfortunately, because they're in the "Publisher Extra" section they're only partially readable without an extra subscription not covered by Wikipedia's deal with Newspapers.com. Nevertheless coverage exists, and apparently includes a story about the university's president was already saying in 1969 that the Jay Center arena was already too small. [57] --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Robert Morris University campus buildings. We are too inclusive with some campus buildings. No sources, I don't see anything except mentions in passing. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is a local, city-wide media that generally is not sufficient for establishing notability. "Consensus is that Division I college basketball venues are notable" - where is that consensus? I lived in Pittsburgh, btw, this was a small local university of little importance. Preserving this OR (?) in a list seems the best we should do without better sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert Morris has a student body population comparable to Dartmouth College. It has an out-of-state students percentage of about 20%, which is only slightly less than the University of Pittsburgh across town. It's hardly a "small local university of little importance." Smartyllama (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Robert Morris University#Campus. Fails WP:GNG. What policy says there should be an article on a 1000 seat stadium that is not notable. Campus buildings can be mentioned in the article on the university, where some basic info could go with just primary sources. Keep a redirect. MB 04:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robert_Morris_University#Campus; not independently notable. A merge is not necessary since the article lists no sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Upon googling this I found multiple third party sources talking about this arena that would meet notability per WP:GEOFEAT. A consensus was made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball a few years ago that all D1 basketball arenas are notable. You can see at Wikipedia:WikiProject College Basketball/Master Table there is a list of all articles for each school. EVERY school in D1 basketball has an article for its arena. If this is to be deleted it would be the only D1 school without an article for its basketball arena which doesn't seem right and could cause issues in some of the basketball templates that link to the arena articles.Mjs32193 (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a former Division I arena, not a current one. Nonetheless, notability is not temporary. If it were notable when it was in use as a Division I arena, it still is. Smartyllama (talk) 17:21, 17 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. Nobody wants to keep, and the merge/redirect opinion does not say where to. The other similar articles would need to be discussed separately. Sandstein 08:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liberalism in the Republic of Ireland[edit]

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

Delete. Zero references for a range of article contained in the template: Liberalism in Europe. Would like to delete all of them. Very few have sources, which makes them all original research. Liberalism in Albania No references. Liberalism in Montenegro no refs. scope_creep (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It might be possible to write an article on the topic (although the vagueness/historically changing meaning of the word liberalism may complicate that), but as the article admits, and as is confirmed elsewhere, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are both conservative parties, and hence there's no content about liberalism. No opinion on the other articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect - It is not clear what deletion criteria is being applied. But if we take the two RS/VER criteria (as refs are mentioned in the nom), I'm not sure either apply. Yes, absolutely, the content is poorly sourced. But one doesn't imagine we can apply WP:DEL6 ("sources not found; and never will be"). Nor, unless the searches were tracked somewhere other than the article's talk page, does it seem to meet WP:DEL7 ("sources not be found; despite thorough searches"). Happy to change recommendation. In particular if I've missed the "thorough attempts to find reliable sources" that DEL7 expects. Otherwise it seems the best course is an aggressive VER/CN cleanup. And, after that, if all that's left is a simple statement ("there are political parties in Ireland with liberal policies"), then we can just merge that statement into the parent article. And redirect this title... Guliolopez (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having looked extensively at the range of article in the template, I think now, that deleting them all would be a mistake. Talking Liberalism in the Netherlands, which is an excellent article, as an example of a good, well sourced article, it is possible to write a good article on the subject, if political parties in the country support liberalism. As Colapeninsula says, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are both conservative but drifting with some, possibly minor aspects of liberalism in their makeup. talk, that could be it, but there is seem to be some mixes sources on GBooks, would need real substantial work to research it. I think the author has probably made some attempt to add sources while some of them are built, but has been unable to provide them, and moved on to them next one, hence supporting the fact that some are WP:OR, with little evidence to support facts. Either way, my initial premise to remove them all, because they all were WP:OR, is probably wrong. scope_creep (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing worth saving here. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:03, 14 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) f e minist 01:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kindergarten readiness[edit]

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

This appears to be one of a bunch of research papers produced by McGill doctoral students and dumped on the Wiki contrary to WP:5P1, It is not ... a collection of source documents. WP:OR & WP:NOTESSAY apply. The article was twice deleted as a G10 rework of Kindergarten & the third G10 nomination on the same day declined. Cabayi (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it certainly could use some trimming down, but it is not horrid. I'd be willing to take this project on after I finish my student teaching this summer. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I declined the A10, because Kindergarten talks only about the educational approach in various countries, and very little about the actual educational content and student development, which is what this article talks about. It's certainly not written encyclopedically (more an essay/instructional guide for parents), but it's not bad enough for TNT. The subject is clearly notable, including being discussed in government studies. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep the concept is notable, and the article is good enough quality to keep. Barely. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:58, 12 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) 09:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Roady[edit]

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

unremarkable YouTube personality Mjbmr (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please see my comment at another AfD started by this user. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not notable as a YouTuber or an actor; sources are interviews or tabloid-like coverage, not amounting to SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If an editor has any concerns regarding the behavior of AfD participants, then please report it on the appropriate noticeboards.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Power~enwiki (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: for above vote no reasons given, not qualified. Mjbmr (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment please note comments on my user and talk page regarding notability for Youtube celebrities. His videos get >100k on a regular basis, and >2 million in some cases. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. of subscribers doesn't make someone notable, point me to a source that mentions him directly and his work, also see other AfDs: 1 2 3 4 5, Comatmebro Hawkeye75 K.e.coffman ping, please also see ongoing related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Edge and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaclyn Hales. Mjbmr (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources which appear to do that (from a quick skim-through) in the references section of the article. As far as the relevance of the other outcomes you've cited, the rationales advanced for deletion there would seem to be other than that which you're using here. And unless someone can disabuse me of the notion, I see no guidelines either way in terms of what constitutes notability for a Youtube celebrity. I can see in one of the AfDs you've cited that you were advised that a "battleground mentality" isn't the best spirit in which to be conducting yourself, and I'll repeat that advice here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - While number of subscribers does not determine notability, the independent coverage on the subject is enough to pass GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourced, notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Beyond My Ken Power~enwiki TheGracefulSlick please give your opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BigDawsTv too, that one related. Mjbmr (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've been canvassed to give my opinion here by Mjbmr and as such, I will pointedly not do so. I do not approve of canvassing. Waggie (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Waggie I'm not sure why want BigDawsTv to be deleted but cleary not taking my action on this one so to keep Dennis Roady, which the first one cleary has more resources. I wanted to clarify people on Wikipedia are ambushing not based on any policy. Mjbmr (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - 3.5 million subscribers - which surpasses some TV stations. Coverage exists - as per quick source check. Perhaps frivolous subject matter, but there is place for the frivolous too. Note that Mjbmr is engaging here in WP:POINT vs. his own Youtube personality creations (and to be fair, he has a bit of a point with the "open youtuber season on AFD" lately - but many of the deletes were warranted).Icewhiz (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I a well aware that subscription counts do not make one notable. Nor does wealth, revenue, and other size metrics. This is however a benchmark that is useful in assessing subject matter - and I for one take a more lenient approach (in regards to assessing the possible existence of sources) - when I see a Youtuber with millions of subscribers compared to one with tens of thousands (or a billionaire vs. a businessman with 5-20 million dollars).Icewhiz (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough valid thirty-party sources, and the page is a mess.TH1980 (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - Blatant WP:CANVASS by the nom occurred with this AfD,[58] including of the previous "Delete" !vote. --Oakshade (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough reliable sources. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:ENT, covered in multiple news articles, although most are with Atwood / Natural Born Pranksters, some cover Roady, especially when it comes to his auto show pranks [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:47, 20 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. Disagreement exists mainly about whether the sourcing is sufficient to prove notability with roughly equal number of editors arguing for and against it. Since "significant coverage" is not a clear standard and no clear agreement exists whether the currently available coverage is significant, no consensus exists at this point. Regards So Why 11:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaclyn Hales[edit]

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

unremarkable actress Mjbmr (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please see my comment at another AfD started by this user. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:TOOSOON; does not meet WP:NACTOR & sig RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If an editor has any concerns regarding the behavior of AfD participants, then please report it on the appropriate noticeboards.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Power~enwiki (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: for above vote no reasons given, not qualified. Mjbmr (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

See my comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Roady. Mjbmr (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourced, notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. a reasonable number of significant roles . DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment most of her films are indie/student films and she was not a lead/main character in the films, except maybe Unicorn City (the one about the LARPing). Extinct (2017 TV series) sounds promising. She plays a main character there and it's BYUtv's second scripted television series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any chance of a consensus?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f e minist 14:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. No profiles, little media coverage beyond mentions in a handful of articles about the minor, indy movies she has appeared in, productions notable for their lack of notability. The sole source for the bio section is PRIMARY, apparently because there has been no media coverage of her career. At least, none that I can find although she has a unique name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Women of Upstate New York magazine article [70] that covers her career. So that's promising, but yeah, only two lead roles in two projects, only the latter of the projects is Wikipedia-notable. If someone really wants her article to stay around, they need to work on it in a draft. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a person currently active in the entertainment industry. It may be WP:TOOSOON because the show Extinct doesn't appear to be on the air yet, but the benefit of the doubt should be to keep the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:15, 21 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 Procedural Close. Already deleted by me under CSD as a duplicate of Elena Ivashchenko Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Shleyzye[edit]

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

This is the second page of one person with Elena Ivashchenko Gintaras8182 (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as duplicate article. Capitals00 (talk) 15:03, 12 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.

[1] Gerntholtz, Liesl. "It's Not Just About Sexual Violence". Huffington Post UK.

[1]