Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 May	15 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ItStartsWithUs[edit]

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

Article about an organization, based almost entirely on primary source referencing to directly affiliated member organizations with virtually no evidence of reliable source coverage. The only source here that counts for anything at all is Indian Country Today (#10), which isn't enough sourcing to carry a WP:GNG claim by itself -- otherwise, this claims to have "media" coverage which is actually blogs and podcasts, not reliable sources. Wikipedia does not exempt activist organizations or their projects from our reliable sourcing requirements just because they do good work -- something like this has to have a range of media coverage that clears WP:ORGDEPTH, and does not get to park its notability on blogs and podcasts and its own self-published content about itself. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTADVOCACY; unsourced or self-cited original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, I can't find a single reason to keep this article. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:10, 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 College of Health Care Professions. If anyone wants to merge any content the history can still be accessed. (non-admin closure) f e minist 10:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

College of Health Care Professions: Austin, TX Campus[edit]

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

Campuses of a college system, can be contained in the main College of Health Care Professions article Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages as other campuses articles:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect Non-notable advertisements. James (^talk/_contribs) 03:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an redirect All pretty much WP:ADVERTs. Nate • (chatter) 23:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
merge them all Obvious enough to do without coming here. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 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. Sandstein 21:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arion Golmakani[edit]

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

Does not seem to be very notable - a few written works, and an award from back in 2012. He doesn't seem to have received much critical attention, and in short, doesn't really meet the notability standards for creative professionals. Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:10, 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 (✉) 20:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources tend towards the local human intesest "we have a writer in our midst" newspaper stories, which just do not count as quality sources. His work did not even win the Saroyan prize, which is a rockie prize anyway, and so of questionable sign as a marker of notability for the author, it was just a "finalist". Not enough to show he is a notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:BIO. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:30, 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 Davao del Norte State College. If anyone wants to merge any content the history can still be accessed. (non-admin closure) f e minist 10:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davao del Norte State College Laboratory School[edit]

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

I've been unable to locate a RS for this School. Best found is this [1] empty facebook page. This probably should be merged/redirected to Davao del Norte State College if some content could be verified. Otherwise delete for failing WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Gab4gab (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverified. I haven't been able to find any reliable sources for this. My browser tells me that the Davao del Norte State College website is unsafe, so I haven't checked that site, but Google doesn't suggest that there is material on it that could help us here. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:11, 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 (✉) 20:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Davao del Norte State College as has no Google News results, and fails GNG. J 947^{^{^(c)}} 19:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the college - it's the simplest solution. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC) Could have been doen without coming here. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm surprised that an admin suggests I've wasted everyone's time by coming here rather than merging unsourced content into an article on my own. Gab4gab (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Davao del Norte State College for lack of notability. If anyone can locate sources for any of this, it can be added to the college's article, but, per WP:V, I don't believe the current, unverified material should be merged anywhere. Rebb ing 11:46, 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 merge to The Intercept. Merge any useful content, then redirect. (non-admin closure) f e minist 10:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intercepted with Jeremy Scahill[edit]

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

A four-month-old political podcast. Article reads like advertising, which is fitting because that's where much of what passes for sourcing is from its production company, along with some passing mentions. Calton | Talk 04:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The producers and contributors to this political podcast are Notable. If it is objectionable for it to have a standalone article, perhaps it should be merged with the existing article The Intercept since they are related? Milhouse-the-mighty (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Milhouse-the-mighty - notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the notability of the show's producers and contributors, so you need to be able to show where it's independently notable outside of Scahill. This can sometimes be difficult to show for news programs and podcasts, as it's not always common for news programs to cover other news programs and podcasts do sometimes tend to be overlooked. That it was very recently launched can make this difficult as well. I think that your idea of a merge is a good idea for the time being, since you could merge the general information into the main article for The Intercept and then redirect IwJS to the main article. This would leave the article's history intact so that if/when the show gains more coverage it can be restored back into an article. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems we have a WikiProject podcasting, and this is notable for inclusion as part of that project. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Being claimed by a Wikiproject" =/= "notable", "encyclopedic", or "supported by reliable sources". In fact, in terms of a deletion discussion, it means, literally, nothing. --Calton | Talk 02:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of a WikiProject for a particular domain does not, in and of itself, constitute an automatic inclusion freebie for every possible topic that might happen to fall under the project's purview — a potential article topic still has to be reliably sourceable as passing a specific notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Intercept. This has nowhere close to enough reliable source coverage in its own right to stand alone as a separate article topic — but its parent publication does, so there's no reason for it not to be at least mentioned there. Bearcat (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:19, 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 (✉) 20:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge with The Intercept. There are simply not enough sources to demonstrate that the podcast, on its own, meets notability criteria. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, but it really needs edited down too (the Major Stories section currently mentions stories that Intercepted only had a small role in, mostly cites Intercepted/The Intercept and doesn't cite enough sources to prove they were major stories). The article has a lot of references but most only mention Intercepted in passing, don't mention it at all, or are not independent. The only article which is substantially about The Intercepted is from Mobile Marketer[2] which appears to just about meet the criteria to be a reliable source, despite partly quoting and paraphrasing a press release. The Business Wire story is a press release. The DJ Spooky interview with Vice is an interview so most of it can't be used as a reliable source. Superficially it almost looks notable, but the sources at the moment fall a bit short, both in depth of coverage and in the status of publications (a story in the NY Times carries more weight than one in a niche online publication, and this podcast doesn't seem to have got much mainstream coverage). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:27, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings (film)[edit]

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

Foremost this film is not in under making or any phase neither any announcement of its release. Nominating for deletion as per policy "We Are Not A Directory". SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:23, 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 (✉) 14:17, 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 (✉) 20:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of the most clear-cut examples of failing to meet WP:NOTFILM I could imagine. In fact, the lead sentence of the article says it all. I could find nothing in WP:NFF to let it remain in main space. The article itself has no references to prove it's even now being filmed, nor could I find anything on Google either. That the article has existed since 2009 is irrelevant, though the lack of references over all that time is surprising. However, I do hate seeing potentially good content being lost, so hopefully an interested editor might copy the content into their sandbox, and keep it there until such time as the film does get made and does eventually meet notability criteria. BTW: Rather that WP:NOTDIRECTORY, I say it merited deletion on WP:NOTBALL. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not IMDB. Ceronomus (talk) 05:14, 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) 01:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Chevreau[edit]

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

Advertorially tinged WP:BLP of a financial journalist, referenced virtually entirely to primary sources (book sourced to Amazon, etc.) with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him shown at all. The only non-primary source here, in fact, is a brief quote from his writing in an article about something else, thus falling in the "glancing namecheck of his existence" class of sourcing that doesn't assist passage of WP:GNG at all. And not surprisingly, the article has been edited by the subject himself in defiance of WP:COI. Nothing here is a strong enough pass of our inclusion standards for journalists to earn him a presumption of notability in the absence of a much better quality of sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:39, 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 (✉) 20:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The 1983 quotation in the brief Slate blog item and various brief mentions verify the subject as a longstanding working journalist. One online interview does describe the subject as "one of Canada’s most renowned financial authors" [3] and he has authored or co-authored various handbooks, but I don't see enough coverage about the subject to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability via WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 17:12, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hook Ya Crook[edit]

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

Film is debarred from the making and fails WP:FILM. Deletion required. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for reasons you mentioned. Elliot321 (talk) 15:25, 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 (✉) 20:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Article clearly states that the film has been shelved, and will not be made. Therefore WP:NFF should be consulted, and there's nothing to there to support retention in any shape or form. It has a snowball's chance of being made, so should be deleted. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:28, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwini Reddy H[edit]

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

Non-notable actress with no coverage in RS that I can find - the only attempt to source the films she supposedly appeared in were a generic google search, Wikipedia and Facebook and I can find nothing else to support that claim. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:32, 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 (✉) 20:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and GSS-1987: I also cannot find any coverage in reliable sources, but perhaps I'm missing something? Waggie (talk) 01:18, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raffia Magazine[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, completely unsourced article about a campus publication. Kleuske (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are sources but they were not displayed correctly (I've put this right). However, the sources are not independent and do not amount to extensive coverage by reliable sources. I'm inlined to the view that this is not notable. Delete. Emeraude (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 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 (✉) 20:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability test and nothing online suggests it is of significance beyond its immediate subscribers. In addition, content of article is almost entirely a cut/paste copyvio of content found here, and I can find no Creative Commons release anywhere on the Raffia website. There is a corresponding article on Dutch wiki, but nothing there I can see to support WP:GNG. In addition, there is a WP:COI with the article creator. The user name (GlynMuitjens) also appears on the Raffia editorial board here, so there is a WP:ADV concern here, too. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:03, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Moroccan football players in foreign leagues[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it fails WP:NOTDIR as it is a simple listing with no context. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 20:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Since no one has commented on this deletion proposal and the page to be deleted has not been prodded, could this discussion be closed as a WP:Soft delete? -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 20:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Appears to be a WP:LISTCRUFT list of stats. Ajf773 (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as LISTCRUFT, and Category:Moroccan expatriate footballers is sufficient. Giant Snowman 13:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a less than nessasary list, there are plent of Moroccan (and other nation's) footballers that play abroad, and there is already Category:Moroccan expatriate footballers which groups together these articles. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:14, 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. Nomination withdrawn, as sufficient evidence has been found to fulfil multiple criterion. (non-admin closure) Wes Wolf ^Talk 19:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Believe in U (song)[edit]

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

Article contains one source, which when visited doesn't even exist. OK the song was performed during the interval of the Eurovision Song Contest 2017, which may cusp WP:COVERAGE. But without any source or charting information whatsoever, then I fear WP:NSONGS has not been met. Wes Wolf ^Talk 20:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wasn't sure if it was notable, but this did chart at #38 for iTunes Top 100 Belarus Music Chart as shown here. I checked to verify and found it was true here, although this will likely update at some point. Perhaps this meets criteria 1 of WP:NSONGS, although once again, I'm not sure if it's notable enough, so I haven't added it into the article. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 18:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Tuxipedia: yes that should be added, as it has charted in a country's music charts. I'll close this AfD down as a speedy keep, seeing as I am the nominator, I can carry that function out. Wes Wolf ^Talk 19:04, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision song contest 2019[edit]

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

Violates WP:CRYSTAL as it is about a future event that cannot be verified by a reliable source. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 20:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as WP:TOOSOON. The 2018 page makes sense, the 2019 one does not. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL. There's a lot of TBD in that infobox. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Opposed to speedy as being a future Eurovision Song Contest that is almost certain to happen is a claim to notability, even if there is clearly insufficient information available to sustain an article. Smartyllama (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete: Waaaaay WP:TOOSOON. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:52, 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) 01:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Motion RC[edit]

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

Another cookie cutter hobby store who do not assert notability like every other WP:COI article about businesses. Donnie Park (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. I've removed most of the article's contents as it was unencyclopedic and its only purpose was to serve as free marketing for the company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f e minist 10:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article contains no claim to notability, merely describing a company's business, nor are my searches finding anything better than routine listings and customer reviews. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 11:21, 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 BSD Records. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Pergolito[edit]

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

This unsourced article is about the founder of a short-lived record label that appears to have only signed one notable act. A search of JSTOR, Google Books, and Google News finds no references to Angelo Pergolito. A search of newspapers.com found only one reference to the name "Angelo Pergolito," which appears to have been a different Angelo Pergolito entirely. At the present time it seems difficult to confirm whether or not Angelo Pergolito was, in fact, an actual person which may call into question his notability. Chetsford (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BSD Records unless sources about him can be found. PamD 15:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect nothing is said about him in article that does not belong in article on his record label.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 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) 01:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution British Wrestling[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestling promotion, lacking in GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Keep Notable wrestling promotion. His event are covered by various sources [4] [5]. Even has a work agreement with NJPW. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete -- the above links are not convincing for notability. The article itself is largely unsourced original research and org spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 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 speedily deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs) per G7. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wissam Raji[edit]

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

I created it and I don't think it was going to appear publicly Wissamraji (talk) 18:11, 14 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 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:12, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Sound Radio[edit]

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

This article is about a future radio station — but that has been what has been claimed in the lead for about a decade. The article has also claimed for virtually all its 11-year existence that it intended to operate under a Restricted Service Licence "in the not too distant future" — but there doesn't seem to be anything to indicate that this has happened. (It's worth nothing, too, that until this AfD the most recent edit was in 2010 — and that was by a bot tagging links to GeoCities pages.) There doesn't appear to be any sources to verify anything about this station. Any presumed notability for broadcast stations depends on both whether a station is operational and there are sources to verify that operation — and the lack of sources means this station doesn't meet the general notability guideline either. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any evidence that this station has ever been operational. Searches find a few directory listings but nothing more. The station isn't listed on the website of OFCOM (the UK broadcasting regulator) as currently holding a licence for any type of radio broadcasting. Neiltonks (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if this did at some point actually operate under an RSL, that's no guarantee of inclusion in Wikipedia in and of itself. What WP:NMEDIA requires, for a radio station to actually get an article, is that its passage of the notability criteria for radio stations is verifiable in reliable source coverage. For one thing, it is entirely possible (and more common than one might think) for a radio station to get an FCC/CRTC/OFCOM license, but then fail for one reason or another to ever actually launch and have its license expire unbuilt. So it's not the license that gets it an article: it's the sourcing that can be shown to support the article. But there's no evidence of valid sourcing being shown here at all — and even if this did have an RSL at some point, it definitely isn't still operational today, as witness the fact that the URL in the infobox leads to a domain reseller rather than a radio station's web page. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Zulfikar Ali[edit]

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

It appears this was previously CSD'ed on nomination from JDDJS but was recreated with the addition of an offline source. While the BLP, in its new incarnation, does have a single source, a fairly thorough search by myself is unable to find substantially more mentions, other than passing asides. Chetsford (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even find passing mentions that would seem to be for this person, born in 1990. Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No coverage in RS. likely a autobio. --Saqib (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no documentary sources to proving the notability of this person.Saff V. (talk) 12:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING and, as mentioned above, a likely autobiography. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. JDDJS (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 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 speedy delete. Closing my own AfD because the article has been speedy deleted G5 as it was created by a banned editor. Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anika Apostalon[edit]

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

College-level swimmer that doesn't pass WP:NSPORTS. Previously deleted by PROD, which of course can't be repeated. Black Kite (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finding independent news sources establishing notability:

https://swimswam.com/2017-w-ncaa-analysis-stanford-returning-308-individual-ncaa-points/
http://pac-12.com/article/2017/02/20/usc%E2%80%99s-anika-apostalon-named-women%E2%80%99s-swimming-and-diving-scholar-athlete-year
http://dailytrojan.com/2017/03/30/usc-womens-swimming-earns-10-academic-honors/

Bfpage _{let's talk...} 23:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first does not provide indepth coverage. The other two are no better than press releases, from publications too highly connected to the college she competes for to show secondary indepdent coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence of any notability. PamD 15:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment i find the comparison with Andrew Hatch and Seth Tarver instructive. apparently winning an NCAA event is not NSPORTS? any consensus for that judgement? Marthacustis (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep USC PICKS UP BIG TRANSFER FROM SDSU ALL-AMERICAN SPRINTER ANIKA APOSTALON, Swim Swam and Swimming World Magazine is an example of in-depth coverage. Seeing lots of Google News results including ESPN, more Swimming World Magazine, Swim Swam beyond primary sources. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Meets WP:SPORTCRIT. Hmlarson (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in-depth to establish notability. Vile Jeremy (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Article needs expansion, but that's quality, not notability. She is an NCAA champion, highest national level in the sport, additional sources have been found. Meets GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 10:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Add [6] Provides biographical information and an updated background on her swimming career from her most recent institution
'Add [7] She recently competed in her first professional swim meet at the TYR Derby Pro Swim Meet on April 29, 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxd130 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 02:42, 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) 01:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Bell (politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician notable only for holding office on a borough council. This is not a level of office that confers an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself: politicians at the borough level get Wikipedia articles only if they can be sourced over WP:GNG as significantly more notable than the norm for that level of office. But the sources here aren't showing that: two of the four are primary sources that cannot assist notability at all, one is the hyperlocal community news website of a network of neighbourhood weeklies that are not widely distributed enough to count as notability-building sources — and the only one that represents genuinely solid media coverage in a major media outlet just makes him a WP:BLP1E, because it's in the context of a single trivial controversy of no enduring significance, in what's recognized as one of the least reputable or trustworthy tabloid rags in the entire British media landscape. This is simply not enough to make a borough councillor notable just for being a borough councillor. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nomination is well-argued, and I can't find more sources. He only got national press for his involvement in one trivial news story which is not itself notable (it was in one national newspaper but wasn't picked up by other media). Bell writes for one of the sources, getwestlondon[8] so that can't be used to establish notability. He has been quoted in the national media[9] but not in depth or at length. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Ealing London Borough Council; there's consensus that English councilmembers aren't inherently notable, and I don't see a WP:GNG case here. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:18, 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) 01:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alice's Restaurant Rock Radio[edit]

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

Article about a defunct pirate radio station, with no evidence of the reliable source coverage needed to get around the fact that pirate radio stations are not extended an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NMEDIA. This is based almost entirely on primary sources that fail to actually verify the content being cited to them -- for example, the claim that this station was inspired by "Radio Geronimo" is referenced to a source which demonstrates that something called "Radio Geronimo" existed, but fails to mention Alice's Restaurant at all (let alone actually verifying the claim that it was inspired by Geronimo) -- and nearly all of the other sources suffer from the same problem. The only source present here that contains a mention of Alice's Restaurant at all, in fact, contains that mention in a reader comment thread on a user-generated messageboard, not in a reliable source. The depth and quality of sourcing needed to make this notable simply isn't in evidence here at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nom describes it all quite well. Lourdes 15:29, 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. Sandstein 14:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell International Affairs Society[edit]

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}}.

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

Non-notable student organization. All references are either self-published (Medium) or from student papers. In short: fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:39, 29 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) 06:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Aloneinthewild (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better, definitely a notable student organization as they're listed on the Cornell overview page of the US News Best Colleges List^[1], the Cornell Chronicle (not student run)^[2], and Best Delegate^[3] Colestefan (talk) 5:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/cornell-university-2711
^ http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/10/cornellians-teach-model-un-two-nyc-high-schools
^ http://bestdelegate.com/cornell-model-united-nations-conference-cmunc-2012-liveblog/

US News is trivial mention. Cornell Chronicle is not student run, but it is the in-house newspaper for Cornell, so roughly the equivalent of a PR source. Being noted on a model UN organization's blog also doesn't satisfy our general notability guidelines, and the coverage combined is certainly not up to the standards or WP:ORG. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, you originally marked it for deletion because "All references are either self-published (Medium) or from student papers," which is no longer the case. It seems to be up to the standards set out by WP:ORG and is certainly a notable organization from the viewpoint of someone involved in the Cornell community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.125.23 (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The new sources added are pretty far from what we would normally expect from an organization under WP:ORG: they are trivial or non-independent mentions in publications that would not be considered reliable sources. The same case for deletion remains: this is a student organization that is very good at what it does apparently, but is not notable in the sense of the word that we use it on Wikipedia. It could very well be noteworthy at Cornell, but that is not the same as saying it should have a separate page in a general reference encyclopedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then you ought to go through and delete hundreds of student organizations that are similarly notable. Georgetown's International Affairs Relations Association only has references from Best Delegate, their own website, and their school paper. Yale is pretty much the same. No one has ever questioned those. You, Tony, just happened to find this page when there were very few references and now have placed a target on its back despite it being up to par with similar organizations. Wikipedia is not a finite or physical encyclopedia; something that is notable at Cornell, notable in the Ithaca community, and notable in the Model United Nations world has a place in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.125.23 (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ORGDEPTH. There is significant coverage from reliable sources such as Oprah and problems originally cited by the complainant have been resolved (can't keep changing the benchmark). References are comparable to existing articles for similar organizations. Colestefan (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is an argument based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The question is whether this article meets WP:ORGDEPTH, which it doesn't in my view as I have explained above. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, mine is also an argument regarding WP:ORGDEPTH, as I explicitly stated. There is significant coverage from a variety of reliable sources. Period. You first said above that "All references are either self-published or from student papers" which is simply false now. When possible, editing should be done to improve the page instead of cavalier deletion as per WP:DEL-CONTENT. This has been done, so I rest my case. There is not consensus on this. Colestefan (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sources offered at this AfD are either passing mentions or not independent of the subject (Cornell). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ken, we could mention every source in the article in this Afd, but that would not be productive. The article and its 17 sources speaks for itself now. They are independent of the subject, because it wouldn't make any sense to include all of this information in the Cornell page, thus it should have its own. 128.84.125.2 (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC) Austin[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 15:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Colestan and the IP. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 20:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L3X1 can you explain how it meets NORG and GNG as your edit summary implies? The only source that gives it in depth coverage is Cornell's equivalent of a PR press. The other sources are a passing mention in the US News profile of the school and a blog post about a conference they hosted from a Model UN training organization. The only independent professional journalism source in the article is about a high school going to a conference, not actually about the student organization. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really Tony? What you're saying is simply false. If you look at the sources there is more than that. From your original reasons to deletion to now, you've been underselling the sources in order to help your case. Do you have some kind of vendetta against this org? It seems like you're not arguing in good faith.

No, I don't have any sort of vendetta against this organization. I believe I randomly discovered it in the new pages backlog. I'm actually quite open to withdrawing an AfD if I have missed something, and have done so several occasions in the past. My only dog in this fight is that including non-notable organizations undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. A student organization with the level of coverage this organization has does not meet our guidelines, and they are typically deleted. L3X1 is the first non single-purpose account to express an opinion otherwise at this AfD, so I was asking them to elaborate given that their rationale was not very lengthy. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I should be able to respond in less than half an hour. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 21:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I'm not a single-purpose account. As for "to express an opinion otherwise," that's clearly a tactic to make it seem like the "consensus" is on your side and it's not appreciated. As previously mentioned, this is an argument based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but since you brought it up by saying "A student organization with the level of coverage this organization has does not meet our guidelines, and they are typically deleted," I'll mention it again. Similar clubs at Georgetown and Yale, with a similar level of coverage (arguably less), have not been deleted, so again it seems you're lying to help your case. And agreeing with the previous anonymous poster, you continue to undersell sources in order to help your case. The independent professional journalism you mentioned talks about the student organization and the conference they run. Colestefan (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni They are referenced (in the title) as their president being the chair of UNESCO. They have also done a lot of work with the UN 2, 3, 4.CMUN coverage 5. Combined with the various posting by sources affiliated with Cornell, I believe there is enough coverage to count as Notable. While it is very hard to completly satisfy both the independent requirement and the GNG, what I read both int he article and in other non-RS covers for it. Personally, I would edit out the Structure sections, as it is a unnessecary list. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 21:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L3X1, that is Model United Nations: a student competition where high schoolers and college students that is not actually connected to the UN. The actual head of UNESCO is Irina Bokova. The other sources are either an advertisement for their conference, self-published (keynote speaker's personal website, and Odyssey.) The final source you provided is about a high school student winning an award, not about the organization itself. Thank you for responding (even if we disagree on this.) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, L3X1. I concur with your general sentiment and would also like to add, with regards to the GNG, that the organization is the successor to the organization that "attended the first [ever] Model Assembly of the League of Nations (at Syracuse University) in 1927 and subsequently hosted their own assembly, believed to be the second ever conference, the next year," backed up by two sources. I agree that the structure sections could be changed. Colestefan (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable independent of the university. Second option would be to merge into a list of Cornell societies, if one exists. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG per searches, and clearly doesn't come close to meeting WP:ORGDEPTH. References are either non-independent or trivial mentions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 26 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 as another week has no disputes about the current sources, thus solving "no sources" and the two prior deletes gave no other objections and these also differ from the nomination's then-current examination (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Kinney[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Of the 13 references listed, 9 are from an "interview" for which no link is given. Jb45424 (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete due to lack of sources. Could change if sources are found. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete article in its current form. Sources are all dead links or subject's own statements. Agricola44 (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The article is a bit bloated and badly sourced in its current form but she appears to pass WP:GNG for her film choreography (e.g. see Washington Post, Style Weekly). There's also passing book coverage of her in connection with Twyla Tharp [10] and the Robin Williams Popeye movie [11] which adds depth to her story despite not really being enough by itself. And the American Dance Festival Distinguished Teaching Award [12] also looks significant, although (despite its name) not really the kind of endowed chair recognized by WP:PROF#C5 (it's an award by a dance festival, not a funded professorial position at a university). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - due to lack of sources and reliability issues Inkedotly (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC) — Inkedotly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In light of newly discovered sources...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 15:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep the additional references seem sufficient for GNG; the article is still almost entirely based off of a personal interview, which as a primary source should be somewhere other than Wikipedia. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is poorly sourced but appears notable per Washington Post and Style Weekly; the article should be rewritten to incorporate additional sources and downplay the interview, but the appropriate course is to flag the article for additional citations rather than deleting it. Newimpartial (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as the Post and other sources are added. Bearian (talk) 23:13, 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) 22:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of shows produced by IM Global Television[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TOOSOON list of every single television project in development at a television production firm, of which only one to date has actually gone to air. The problem here is that just because a series is in the development pipeline does not necessarily mean it's ever actually going to come out the other end as a thing viewers will actually get to watch: projects can be delayed or abandoned entirely, or turn out to be so bad that no channel or network at all actually wants to buy them. Accordingly, the standing rule per WP:TVSHOW is that a TV series doesn't get an article the moment it's announced as being in production, but rather Wikipedia editors have to wait until the show has a confirmed premiere date -- and the same principle should accordingly apply to lists of the television series: until the "network" and "original running" columns can both be completely filled in with confirmed data rather than "TBA", a list is not appropriate yet. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yet that one series which is Ice was not originally made by them. Instead the company made an investment in the series and owns worldwide rights alongside eOne. IM barely has anything out and for the most part it's been nothing but this is in development or this is in development. And even if the productions are in "development" shouldn't they at least be kept track of? I barely hear anything about the projects past the developmental line. Interestingthing (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into IM Global. The company has only invested in the series. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind if the list per say was merged into the main IM Global page. Really it's up to you though. As far as I'm concerned, the only Wikipedia article I linked was just Ice, other than that. There isn't any other Wikipedia articles I've linked. All it really is, is citing Deadline, Variety and or Hollywood Reporter links (depending on the source), giving information and the rest is history. I've done this several times before on other pages and it won't be the last time I do so. So again, if you wish to say move the list to the IM Global page it's fine by me. I still want to keep track of all the shows that are in development. I do wish though, these companies were better in announcing that the project is dead depending on what it is. Interestingthing (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One original series went to air. That's it; the entire rest of the list is proposed, and I'm not holding my breath most of them come to air. Like most series with a number of international producers/financiers, this entire 'company' seems only designed to throw up a closing credits vanity card among twelve of them that'll blur like most of companies of the same ilk because they threw money at them, and doesn't do anything involving the actual physical production of a series or film. Also, a variety of sources rather than just Deadline.com's rip-and-read of IM Global's press releases turns this into basically a WP:PROMO article using Deadline as a cover for 'it's notable I have a source' for every series. IM Global is also an WP:ADVERT mess, and a merger shouldn't be considered. Nate • (chatter) 01:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"A variety of sources rather than just Deadline.com's rip-and-read of IM Global's press releases'" uh.. I didn't rip from the IM Global website. No instead I went through the news section of Google, looked up IM Global TV, started from the moment the company was formed, then went month by month of the past few years up now. I even looked through my history and for the most part I did exactly what I said. And even the main page is a mess? If that's the case then both pages should be gone. Interestingthing (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But you only used Deadline to source the entire article. That's not acceptable; we require a diversity of sources and an article is on shaky ground if it's only sourced to a few articles from the same source. And I say rip and read because Deadline mainly takes what's in the PR and creates a story out of that if they aren't reporting it on their own. Nate • (chatter) 02:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, I did only source from Deadline for the page so my fault on that. But if somehow the list gets cleared from being deleted, I'd be more than happy to change certain sources around and I'll try to keep it in mind going forward including many other pages I have done as well. Deadline is usually a primary source to me and I go on there all the time and get notifications from them alongside Hollywood Reporter and Variety regularly on the latest news. Interestingthing (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "listcruft" of nn titles. Not encyclopedically relevant. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paik Seung-ho[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. MYS 77 ^✉ 14:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 14 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) 11:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:51, 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 Champions (U.S. TV series). (non-admin closure) f e minist 10:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Champions (2017 TV series)[edit]

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

Fails GNG. TV series in development. No in-depth coverage in independent RS. WP:TOOSOON MB 14:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Champions (U.S. TV series). Open AfC for that, if warranted. — Wylie pedia 00:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have moved the article to Champions (2017 TV series) (without leaving a redirect behind) before seeing this AfD, as the article title was clearly in error. So this AfD is now for Champions (2017 TV series). FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect after merging any unique content (note: this does not include the episode table – it is WP:TOOSOON for that to exist!) from Champions (2017 TV series) to Champions (U.S. TV series). Note that the latter article should not be deleted as it meets WP:TVSHOW (and is better sourced than the former). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that "2017 TV series" disambiguation is likely incorrect in any case – this show is not on NBC's Fall schedule, and likely won't premiere until 2018. So "U.S. TV series" disambiguation is preferable all around in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J. J. Totah[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Has not had significant roles or a large fan base. SPA removed Notability tag multiple times. Refs are do not provide in-depth coverage (The first is a local hometown newspaper, the rest are interviews or minor mentions. SF Chronicle article is the best ref, but one is not enough). WP:TOOSOON MB 14:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Breakout star of the 2016 Sundance Festival; qualifies on WP:BASIC.^{[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]} Lourdes 14:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - was going to create his article by the end of the month (if his show got picked to series), quite notable child actor and now a notable teen actor.--Ste moc 05:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets gng Chetsford (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He has had roles in 16 TV shows, 4 of them in the main role, and he has been cast in Marvel Studio's next Spider Man movie. Please don't AfD clearly notable BLPs. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's wildly overstating things – he's only had 2 TV series "main roles" (one of them on a show not even fully in production yet). All his other TV appearances were guest or recurring. If it weren't for the additional notice for him in the film Other People, I am not sure that this would be so clear-cut a "pass" of WP:NACTOR. I can assure that if this AfD had been held 6 months ago, the result would have gone the other way. It's only recent developments that push this one over the top. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets Criteria #1 of NACTOR. Other quality reasons mentioned above. South Nashua (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I {{notability}} tagged this article myself back in December, but a lot has changed since then – the biggest development is Totah's getting cast in NBC's upcoming Champions sitcom: among that, Back in the Game, and the role in the 2016 film Other People, I now think a good case can be made for Totah passing WP:NACTOR. So it's now a "keep". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 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 Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn; apologies for wasting people's time, and thanks to Lourdes for pointing out the obvious. I really think I must have been looking at another page- but that is of course no excuse. Well caught even so! (non-admin closure) — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Girish Jhunjhnuwala[edit]

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

Purely a promotional puff-piece. A WP:BEFORE indicates a dearth of reliable sources. The sole coverage is from blogs, zines, press releases, and tabloids, with the few reliable sources providing only a fleeting glimpse and passing mentions, usually in the context of the business rather than him personally. This is insufficient to demonstrate depth or WP:PERSISTENCE in coverage. Fails WP:ANYBIO. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi FIM. I went through some sources and they seem to cover the subject's life significantly. For example [21], [22], [23], [24] and others. Even New York Times addresses the subject's life and the subject's business decisions in the initial four paragraphs of this article. As one of the sources documents, the subject was awarded the E&Y Young Entrepreneur of the Year award for 2016. If you might want, I can work on the article and change its tenor to be more acceptable. Thanks. Lourdes 16:23, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete MCA Studio Recordings[edit]

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

Prod removed. Of the reviews cited in the article, one is an obviously unreliable source, one is 404, and only the Allmusic one seems reliable. However, there are no sources beyond this, and the album did not chart. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as noted in the edit summary when the prod was removed, there are two working sources: PopMatters and Allmusic, both of which are listed as reliable sources by our Albums WikiProject. I have gone ahead and expanded the article using these refs. This release meets WP:NALBUM as it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, independent, reliable works. Gongshow talk 16:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though non-charting per nomination, it is still a viable entry in the discography of an indisputably notable musician. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe the sources added by Gongshow are enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:16, 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vanita Srivastava[edit]

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

Unsourced resume for an Indian journalist. An English-language Google search revealed no in-depth coverage about her. Also, the article's claims about "famous" articles seem to be exaggerated. GermanJoe (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:09, 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 (✉) 12:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. bd2412 T 19:07, 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. Sandstein 21:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lano private school[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Was deleted about a month ago through the prod process, so could not be prodded again. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially a primary school. Primary schools are not usually notable. Nothing indicates that this one is. Emeraude (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:33, 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 (✉) 12:04, 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Sargeant[edit]

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

WP:NMOTORSPORT. Non-professional racing driver who competed only in the low level single-seaters championship. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One of many articles created by the same user that fail WP:NMOTORSPORT, as detailed by the many, many prod and AfD templates on their userpage. Note that the same user has been blocked for continuing to create this very sort of article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 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, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:04, 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) 01:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parront[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism per WP:NEO, and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. No significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by creator without comment. Uncle Roy (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 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 (✉) 12:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Power~enwiki (talk) 19:10, 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) 01:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Hayat Khan[edit]

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

fail WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BASIC due to lack of reliable sources. Saqib (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:08, 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 (✉) 12:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacking WP:RS to indicate notability. Facebook and clickbait blogs are not reliable sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:15, 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decomposed Subsonic[edit]

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

While there is some play that can be found on Google Books, it is not of the in-depth quality needed to show he passes WP:GNG, and there is nothing to suggest that they pass WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 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 (✉) 05:19, 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 (✉) 12:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of passing WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:14, 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 all. Kurykh (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 PDC Development Tour 1[edit]

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

As per this discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 European Tour 1 - East European Qualifier I am nominating more non Darts tournaments of questionable notablity.

also nominating:

More youth tours:
- 2017 PDC Development Tour 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

- 2017 PDC Development Tour 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2017 PDC Development Tour 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2017 PDC Development Tour 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2017 PDC Development Tour 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2017 PDC Development Tour 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2017 PDC Development Tour 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Secondary tours:
- 2017 PDC Challenge Tour 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2017 PDC Challenge Tour 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Australian regional tours and qualifiers:
- 2017 DPA Australian Pro Tour 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2017 DPA Australian Pro Tour 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2017 DPA Australian Pro Tour 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2017 DPA Australian Pro Tour 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2017 DPA Australian Pro Tour 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2017 DPA Australian Pro Tour 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2017 DPA Australian Pro Tour 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2017 DPA World Series Qualifier 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2017 DPA World Series Qualifier 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2017 DPA World Series Qualifier 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2017 DPA World Series Qualifier 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Russian regional tour:
- 2017 EADC Pro Tour 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2017 EADC Pro Tour 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nordic ones:
- 2017 PDC Nordic & Baltic Pro Tour 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2017 PDC Nordic & Baltic Pro Tour 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2017 PDC Nordic & Baltic Pro Tour 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2017 PDC Nordic & Baltic Pro Tour 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Q-School single days:
- 2017 PDC Qualifying School Day 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2017 PDC Qualifying School Day 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2017 PDC Qualifying School Day 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2017 PDC Qualifying School Day 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reasoning: The above article(s) describe minor darts events. Those are held just for the players, no tv, no spectators. Thus they don't get mentioned or noted in any secondary sources but the PDC website or darts databases. Also the bracket format, not used by any of the aforementioned site, makes the articles huge and incomplete, because often the first round is not included. Because of the players being mostly amateur the articles don't have much usabilty because they mostly are just red wikilinks. Koppapa (talk) 09:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. OZ OO 14:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as minor sporting events earning no coverage outside WP:ROUTINE results publishing. Wikipedia is not a results directory. OZ OO 14:45, 21 April 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} 20:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since this contains multiple articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:56, 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 (✉) 12:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, in agreement with nom. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:13, 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) 22:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Narco States (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. No indications that they meet any of the criteria for inclusion. No signs of any significant independent coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't believe this article should be removed under section 5 of criteria for musicians:

"Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)."

Narco States has released 2 (with number 3 in a few months time) albums with Piñata Records in Minneapolis, which has its own Wiki page, as well as fellow label mates L'Assassins and Black Diet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robblauer (talk • contribs) 13:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Robblauer: The existence of a Wikipedia article does not make a label "more important indie labels". Piñata Records has one "notable" band in their roster and has only been in existence for five years. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What could we change to allow the publishing of this article? More published sources of our work? Wait until our third release under Pinata? What qualifies as a "more important indie label"? If you've allowed Pinata their own page, does that not make them important? I would argue that Pinata has at least 3 notable bands by your criteria, including Narco States, Black Diet, and L'Assassins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robblauer (talk • contribs) 15:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In reply to good faith queries above, merely proving existence does not equal notability. What is lacking here--as stated with the original nomination--is a lack of significant sources. The ones provided are blogs, user submitted sites, promotional, and first party (i.e. interviews) and, in general, small-time coverage. To save this article would require more evidence of third party coverage independent of the subject's promotional interest. If they exist, add them to the article and get rid of the current references that are only dragging the article down. If they don't exist then its a pretty good indication this band lacks encyclopedic importance. Sometimes its best to wait until a subject achieves more evidence of genuine notability before attempting an article. Best of luck in your efforts. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 24 April 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} 20:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:42, 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 (✉) 12:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Assertion of qualifying under WP:NMUSIC#5 not persuasive as Pinata Records does not qualify as "one of the more important indie labels". Does not qualify under WP:GNG as coverage cited is either not significant, not independent, or both. Questions (from the band's presumed drummer) above also shows a common misconception: Articles cannot be made notable. Article subjects are made notable outside of Wikipedia by the actions they perform that generate significant, independent coverage. Wikipedia is not a tool to promote a band to notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:17, 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 nomination withdrawn. I'm still not entirely convinced we can spin a full article out of this, but I'll AGF that others think we can. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N216[edit]

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

This is the sliproad leading down to the Calais ferry terminal. The article is sourced to Google Maps and a search for sources reveals nothing else either. It may be possible to redirect; I'm just not sure where. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A26 autoroute. RN216 and A216 autoroute are both mentioned (briefly) there as a spur to the ferry port. "Pepper" @ 04:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I hesitated about nominating this article for deletion back in January but in light of the criteria in WP:GEOROAD I decided not to. The N prefix in France denotes a national highway which the notability guidelines class as being "typically notable". It is the only main road leading down to the Calais ferry port which is the 4th most important in France Port_of_Calais with 3.5 Million vehicles coming off the ferries and up this road. With the recent migrant problems of people trying to get to the UK the road has become a focal point and a number of migrants have been killed on this road. N216 specifically mentioned Domdeparis (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a trivial passing mention - you'll need more sources than that, and we need those because at the moment the article is not adhering to WP:NPOV as it does not talk about the migrant issues which I agree are the most important thing here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that 5 deaths on a single road is trivial but here is another mention. The road is also called in French the rocade est or rocade portuaire. [25] i don't understand the NPOV remark. It is a fact that 5 migrants have been killed on this road trying to climb abord vehicles for the UK. There is nothing in what I have written that is not neutral I think but feel free to suggest other wording. Domdeparis (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you updated the article since I last looked at it. I've added another source and expanded on that, but I still can't help thinking I'm writing about the Calais Jungle in the wrong place. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying but I have regularly taken this road when traveling from France to the UK and I can assure you the police presence and the barriers make it a very strange trip. Domdeparis (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

here's an article with a phot of the barriers Domdeparis (talk) 09:37, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Sons of China[edit]

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

Probably an original research with no notability. The article title is not commonly recognizable, almost no Google search result match it. No article in Chinese Wikipedia corresponding this. Only three references and all of them are not directly linked to the topic of the article. Techyan（Talk） 10:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These seven cities or areas just described by a series poems, the concept does not exist.--xiliuheshui※MESSAGE BOARD 16:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Wen Yiduo. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment zh-wiki does have an article on the poem zh:七子之歌 Snuge purveyor (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment True, but even in the Chinese Wikipedia it's a very poorly sourced one. There's a dead link pointing to a Tsinghua University article (which we don't know if it's a balanced analysis of the works' significance or a POV piece supporting Chinese territorial claims) and a dubious source merely transcribing the poems' Chinese original text. If kept, the article should be rewritten as one primarily describing the poems (although a section describing objectively the political background may be useful), removing all geopolitical analysis (infoboxes, graphics, statistics, "concept" claims and so on). Links to Chinese nationalism and One-China policy on the "See also" section should be added instead. --Urbanoc (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The dubious source does have some background a scroll past the poems, but with your points I agree in entirety. Delete. Snuge purveyor (talk) 07:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I checked again and indeed you're right, it has a fair amount of background under the poems' text (albeit in a rather panegyric-like tone, especially towards the end). Thanks for pointing that out. --Urbanoc (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this point, I fail to see enough sources to back a Wikipedia article on the subject. However, the author is somewhat known within the PRC and his works seem to have government support there. A future article centring on the poems and not on their geopolitical implicancies may be possible. --Urbanoc (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Article creator is pushing these poems by adding a link to the lede of every relevant Wikipedia article , i.e. here. However, I don't see their significance or notability reflected in a range of reliable secondary sources, as required by Wikipedia policy. Citobun (talk) 13:33, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Molana Sahibzada Muhammad Masood Ahmad Fareedi Basirpuri[edit]

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

This is yet another article on an obscure South Asian religious figure without sustained, consistent coverage in mainstream media. Of the three sources cited, one is tied directly to the subject's organization and the other is a Youtube video. The subject has insufficient notability to warrant an article, and the attempt has many of the signs of attempts to exploit Wikipedia as buzz-generation which have been seen with other articles on obscure South Asian religious figures. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Couldn't find enough sources that can demonstrate the notability of subject. --Saqib (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Saqib. Saff V. (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Hosmer[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete: NN journeyman in the low minors, could never pass any iteration of WP:NHOCKEY, let alone the current one, fails the GNG. One of the classic WP:DOLOVISCREATEDIT riffs of claiming that an "all-star" in the lowest North American semi-pro leagues meets notability standards, but that's like saying that the MVP of your hometown's Little League does. Ravenswing 20:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Ravenswing. Found some coverage on a recent trade he was involved in but not enough to pass GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:42, 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 (CSD G11, A7) (non-admin closure). Linguist ^talk|contribs 11:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ravanabrothers[edit]

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

This new article on a historical research group / musical act doesn't have any sources either in the article or, insofar as I can find, elsewhere. Chetsford (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DELETED AS MEETING WP:CSD#A7 and if squinted and held your head just right, WP:CSD#G11Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:10, 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 merge to Strauss (company). Sandstein 20:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strauss family timeline[edit]

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

PRODed and endorsed by 2 other editors. Author (who seems to be a Strauss related SPA) de-prodded (after more than 7 days). The Article is poorly writted, not referenced, and includes information that should be on Strauss Group, Michael Strauss (industrialist), and Ofra Strauss (constructively - it might make sense to create Richard Strauss (industrialist) - he is notable) as well as hagiography and non-encyclopedic information Icewhiz (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per nomination. Bulleted list that reads like a company website's history page. It's titled "family timeline" but it's really a company timeline. The bulleted items for which secondary WP:RS can be found should be merged (as WP:PROSE) to Strauss (company). Uncle Roy (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as per nom and Uncle Roy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Strauss (company). Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect. If there's any actually useful content, merge it with citations to where it should go, then redirect this to Strauss Group. If there's nothing worth merging, delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:05, 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 speedy delete (CSD G12, A7) (non-admin closure). Linguist ^talk|contribs 11:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K STAR Digitals[edit]

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

unsourced article on new company appears not to pass GNG Chetsford (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DELETED AS WP:CSD#A7, WP:CSD#G11 WITH A DASH OF WP:CSD#G12 Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:04, 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 no consensus. No consensus due to low participation. (non-admin closure) f e minist 10:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucien Stryk Asian Translation Prizes[edit]

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

not notable -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, though it might be better to merge with American Literary Translators Association, where it is already mentioned. I found news coverage, including in obituaries of Stryk (e.g. [26], [27]) or stories on past winners ([28], [29]). Cnilep (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this record. It's a massive achievement to win any translation prize - when you consider the amount of learning, training and years of practice, it's comparable with winning Olympic medals. Will try and find further citations etc. Please could you correct it to read Prize (not Prizes) in the title? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkb (talk • contribs) 15:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
i could move it to draft space, where you can improve it, without worrying about immediate notability concerns. when it's ready, you can have it moved back... sound good? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ended up here trying to figure out who won the prize in 2011. I'm not a Wikipedian, and it probably doesn't make any difference, but the page is useful to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.109.190.34 (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's niche, but it's a competitive prize and it appears to be a main one in its field. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:10, 8 May 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) 04:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 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 Menudo. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 05:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Los Fantasmas[edit]

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

This article has cited no sources since December 2009. There is also no evidence of notabilty and no proof that the album was recorded at Abbey Road Studios in 1976. DBZFan30 (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of bands have pages like that for every album. The low quality of the page is not evidence for its lack of notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not a valid reason for keeping an article. See WP:OSE. Sergecross73 msg me 03:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The page has existed for over a decade. Why should it be deleted now? Should the thousands of other albums with pages in a similar state be deleted as well? Power~enwiki (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the nomination says - it's unsourced, making it fail Wikipedia's standard for whether or not something should have its own article. How long it has existed, and how bad it is in comparison to other articles, is irrelevent. If you want to provide a valid argument for keeping the article, you want to form your argument around it passing the WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Sergecross73 msg me 10:50, 8 May 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) 04:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Menudo, per usual practice when albums are not notable but artists are. I couldn't find any sources to indicate the album is actually notable enough to have a standalone article. Even es.wiki and it.wiki don't have any sources listed. Google search turned up nothing, even in Spanish, and neither did Google books. We can always un-redirect if somebody locates a source somewhere. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:59, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maharani Phool Bai Rathore[edit]

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

The only Google hit that comes up for this person at all is a on a spam blacklist— Google Books had nothing (nothing) at all on her, article has no references of its own, there is no interlanguage link to another Wikipedia, looks like a dead end to me. Claims of being a princess and the wife of a maharaja are all well and good, but without citations to back up the claims, this could all be so much creative writing. Wikipedia is not a creative writing workshop. KDS4444 (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article seems to be inspired by the 2013-2015 TV show, Bharat Ka Veer Putra – Maharana Pratap. I don't think what we have here passes WP:NOR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:57, 8 May 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) 04:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Even if fully referenced and wikified, I think she would still be a NN minor member of a royal family. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:18, 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. No rationale offered explaining why article should be redirected. Kurykh (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bangi Government and Private Training Centre Area[edit]

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

Non-notable. No reliable or significant coverage. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bandar Baru Bangi. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 15:43, 12 May 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) 04:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't see a reason to redirect as there are no sources verifying any of the information. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:53, 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 merge to Koichi Nakano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nakano Kōichi Kanshū: Keirin Ō[edit]

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

Contested WP: PROD. No edit summary was provided by the contesting editor, so I'll just copy-and-paste my rationale from the prod: Fails to meet WP: NGAMES. No indication of importance, and all the cited sources provide only basic database information, no significant coverage. Martin IIIa (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:16, 7 May 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) 04:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Koichi Nakano as per the Japanese wiki. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect seems suitable. Not enough info for a standalone article but no reason we can't mention it in Koichi Nakano's page, given we have sources indicating it exists. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:51, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jozef Teodor Mousson[edit]

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

Google Books search only turned up one reference that might be about the subject (in Slovakian)— the other hits (there were only five total) didn't look promising and had no content I could access through the Internet. Article has only one external link as a reference, and it is the same as the only "reference" in the article on the Slovakian Wikipeda. If there are more Slovakian references that are reliable, substantive, independent, and verifiable, they might be adequate to justify retaining this article. Without them, this person does not appear to meet the English Wikipedia's notability requirements. KDS4444 (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources indicate that subject would pass any notability guidelines for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think - there are loads of paintings online, mostly for sale at reasonable prices, some with longer bios attached. We can't expect everything to be on the internet and in English. They look absolutely horrid, but there you are. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 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) 00:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The only source provided in the article(there are others), which doesn't appear in any libraries I can consult, including worldcat, appears to be this book, which appears to be a serious monograph. That is significant critical attention, so he can pass WP:ARTIST. His work appears at auction, and if the listed prices example are real, €12,000 to €27,000 is respectable. Mduvekot (talk) 18:07, 7 May 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) 04:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- appears to be a notable artist; see for example:

"Graphic artist Teodor Jozef Mousson with its own painting style became famous already for his life. After the death became a painter Zemplín sun and people. He fulfilled the dream of the artistic journey, when he started studying fine art at the Eduarda Ballu. (...) His paintings are in Slovak and foreign museums, galleries and in private collections. ..."

Source: "Mousson is indelibly written in the history of the whole Zemplína". More sources are likely to be available in Slovak.

Also appears to be in a permanent collection of this museum (not sure how big / significant it is, but the write up is professionally done):

"Jozef Teodor Mousson was born in Högyészy, Hungary, in 1887. In 1905 -1909 he studied at the Academy of Fine Arts in Budapest (Professor E. Ballo). In 1910 he received the scholarship from the Union of Visual Artists. In 1911 he accomplished a short stay in an artistic colony in Nagybányi (Baia Mare, Romania), where he acquired the basic skills of landscape art. From 1911 he lived permanently in Michalovce. Until 1919 he was an art teacher, then a freelance artist. He visited Italy – Venetia in 1913 as a study stay. In 1931 he moved to a villa in Hrádok near Michalovcem, the admirer of his work, earl A. Sztáray offered the place to him to stay there. ..."

Source: Jozef Teodor Mousson: Market in Banská Štiavnica.

On the balance of things, given the non-English source challenges, appears to be notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also this 1977 book:Teodor Jozef Mousson v zbierkach Zemplínskeho múzea v Michalovciach. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if the article is kept, should be moved to Teodor Jozef Mousson -- appears to be better known under this name, vs "Jozef Teodor". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Lloveras[edit]

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

Low-level amateur driver who fails WP:NMOTORSPORT and WP:GNG Corvus tristis (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NMOTORSPORT Seasider91 (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/NMOTORSPORT fail. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable people by intelligence quotient test scores[edit]

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

Walking WP:BLP nightmare in concept. Current primary source looks sketchy and doesn't give its own sources or inspire confidence. But beyond that, I just doubt we can get solid sources for such a slippery concept as "IQ". These tests are administered privately and it's difficult to prove or disprove claims. I just don't think we want to be going down the path of ranking living persons by intelligence. Herostratus (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article that relies for one of its two references on a stunningly unreliable website called "The Richest" is off on a bad foot. Given the lack of agreement on how to define and measure IQ, I am unconvinced that an acceptable encyclopedic article on this topic can ever be written and maintained. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:TNT based on the title. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mensans. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor concept for a list article and potentially can violate WP:BLP and WP:OR. Ajf773 (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly sourced with no rigour (what tests were applied? how old were they at the time? what conditions was it conducted under? how reputable is the test?). The list of Mensans has validity as a list of notable members of an obviously notable organisation. It might be possible to cover this topic in an encyclopedic way (e.g. scores on highly-regarded tests, with references); but there's a reason we don't have lists of people with 4.0 GPAs or first class honours degrees, there's just too many caveats and it's too trivial. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as merging to list of Mensans seems wrong. Isn't that a formal organization? Would be like adding all people with a liberal bent to "List of Democrats." Hyperbolick (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quite apart from the extremely random selection, the fundamental data for this is not reliable. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 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 speedy keep. The premises of nomination stands unfounded. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 03:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imagbon[edit]

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

Unsourced stub. Could be a hoax. KMF (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Definitely not a hoax. Imagbon is a village located in Ogun State, Nigeria. It is also the site of the Imagbon War that occurred in 1892. I have added sources to the article that verify this. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Not a hoax. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sufi texts[edit]

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

Fails WP:CSC - does not meet any of the three Criteria. Reason: it is not reasonably possible to identify all "Sufi" texts - i.e., all works written by, or attributed to, people who are or have been considered by various people as "Sufis", or who claim(ed) to be Sufis, or who are or have been named as "Sufis" after their death. List of Sufis and List of Sufi saints already list a plethora of names, most authors of numerous works. Additionally, nearly all entries seem to be based on WP:OR, with not a single source to support the list, in violation of WP:LISTVERIFY. — kashmiri ^TALK 00:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete largely per nom. To assist other users, I'll point to the fact that Al-Ghazali's article describes him as a scholar of Sufism, but not as a Sufi himself (a Shafi'i instead), and his appearance in the list here doesn't include his famous The Incoherence of the Philosophers, although I'll admit that's not described in its article as a Sufi text (perhaps unsurprisingly, given the fact that its author isn't likewise). In other words, there's at best an inconsistent definition of "Sufi" and the same of "Sufi text" in this list, as well as the lack of sourcing/apparent OR. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. The list is attempting a classification which is already provided, better, by the category 'Sufi literature' and its subcategories. The categories, of course, do not have to attempt to be 'complete'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The category for such texts is sufficient; a list serves no purpose, especially when it can never be exhaustive, and when sourcing can be so problematic. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 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. Current community consensus about schools, as noted at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, is that: "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist". The "keep" opinions here mostly assert the opposite, but they do not attempt to establish that the school is covered in reliable third-party sources in such a way that it would pass WP:GNG. These opinions must therefore be discounted as contrary to broader community consensus. Sandstein 21:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abeokuta Girls Grammar School[edit]

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

Fails NCORP and GNG. Only coverage is in list articles, PRIMARY sources, or brief mentions. Primefac (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked and found most of the coverage mentioning the school is about the school's most famous alumna, Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti. (She's not even mentioned in the article. Sad!) The articles are mere mentions of the school; not enough for notability. Coverage was otherwise not independent or not reliable. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES doesn't apply. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti attended the mixed school, not the girls only school. Darreg (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME. The consensus for public secondary schools in countries such as Nigeria is that once verifiability can be established then the school should be kept. This is a girls-only secondary school established before Nigeria gained independence, and have produced notable activist as alumnus. I have seen a number references online, will add them here soon. They might not be substantial but they show that the school exist. Darreg (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Darreg, please make sure to read through all of SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. The widely-attended "schools" RFC reaffirmed that "[s]econdary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." This had already been established by NSCOOLS (requiring significant coverage in independent, reliable sources) and ORGSIG ("No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools."). The RFC's closing panel went so far as to establish that votes using this rejected premise may be wholly disregarded by AfD closers. Rebb ing 12:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to point 2, that says Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists.. I didn't know there was an RFC on this, the last time I visited WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME there was no RFC there. And I have created more than ten public secondary schools in Nigeria based on my previous understanding. I guess there is no need to add the references here since they are just mere mentions, the only place you will get comprehensive coverage of the school are in the website of the old student association. I don't agree with the decision of the RFC though, Nigerian secondary schools will suffer, notable media hardly ever reports on them significantly. Darreg (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The school hasn't been discussed in reliable sources to warrant stand-alone inclusion. Articles can't be kept simply because of the failure of coverage in local media. If this school was notable, it should have been discussed. Although Wikipedia prefers online sources, print sources can be cited as well. Darreg, if you want this article kept, I suggest you invest some time in looking for offline sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding precedent and consensus. It seems clear from previous discussions that the RfC has not overturned this consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: The RfC is the consensus. You disagree with that outcome. Face facts. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your view of the RfC isn't generally accepted as consensus. Face facts! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the RfC isn't driven by the result of that DRV or this AfD. The result of this AfC and that DRV are driven by the RfC. I am disappointed someone of your experience chooses to embrace inclusionism in defiance of the community. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am far from being an inclusionist. Interpretation of the RfC varies, as you know very well and as is attested by the number of editors who don't agree with your interpretation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (per DEL8) because the school hasn't received significant coverage from independent, reliable sources as required by the notability guideline for schools. This requirement exists so that we can write verifiable, balanced, useful articles; it is not merely unlikely, but actually impossible, to comply with our content policies when writing about a subject that hasn't received significant coverage in trusted, unrelated publications. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory, a Web host, or a social justice project, our content policies must prevail and this article must be deleted. There are, however, alternative outlets that may gladly accept this work. Rebb ing 17:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The RfC did not say that articles like this could not be kept, and I would argue that any one of any possible significance should be kept--it just invalidated the use of schooloutcomes as an automatic reason without further discussion. It does not prevent our decided to keep despite failure of the gNG whenever we want to make an exceptions--it does not prevent us from always makign an exception for high schools, and I think we should continue to do so.

The reason, quite simply is to avoid these discussions--experience at present shows that every one of them will be carried to deletion review,and experience from the distant past before we had the practice showed that the number of them is capable of clogging AFD to an unmanageable number and preventing us from properly dealign with more important things. . In this case, there';s an additional reason, which is cultural bias--we can and should consider that any verifiable high school that has more than transient existence in a country where currently findable sources are difficult to find, may well have them. The rule is sourceable, not currently sourced. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this article is deleted, for consistency reasons, I am going to nominate Wesley College Ibadan, Abeokuta Grammar School and the 20+ secondary schools articles that I've created in the past one year. Infact, there is no single Nigerian secondary school that really passes GNG in thier present state. Please can someone give me a reason why I should not nominate all of them if this article is deleted? Darreg (talk) 10:14, 13 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, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep if we keep "most secondary schools", this passes the bar. Otherwise there are literally thousands of articles that will show up here. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- From the "schools" RFC: "Citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES in an AfD makes the circular argument 'We should keep this school because we always keep schools.' This argument has been rejected by the community. Therefore, while SO remains perfectly valid as a statement of what usually happens to extant secondary schools at AFD, SO should be added to arguments to avoid in AFD discussions. Rationales that cite SCHOOLOUTCOMES are discouraged, and may be discounted when the AFD is closed." Rebb ing 09:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Editors should not flood AFD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations." without some claim that this school is *less* notable than the average secondary school, I can't support or encourage this type of AFD. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Power~enwiki, you do realize we put that in there so one editor (or collective group) didn't mass-nominate thousands of articles, right? I've AFD'd maybe two schools since the RFC concluded, and that was purely because I came across them through other means. I'm not on the hunt for pages to AFD, so if you can't support a regular user coming across a page they feel doesn't meet the criteria and subsequently nominates it for deletion, then I'd be confused if you didn't vote keep on every AFD. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

supporting the idea that WP should be consistent is not a circular argument. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, but that's why we have policies, guidelines, etc. Otherwise you're just dismissing what there is broad consensus for with your own opinion about what's notable and what's not based only on the subject, irrespective of the existence of sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Increasingly disappointed with this group of editors attending every school AfD, repeating the same "because it is so" arguments, dismissing established, broad consensus (WP:N, SNGs) and wikilawyering the recent RfC (hashtag #alternativeRfCs). And then another group, of which I seem to be part, engaging them in multiple venues, repeating the same "but... policies and guidelines? RfC? WP:LOCALCON? seriously?" pleas ad nauseum... If it's not given a free pass in one of our SNGs, and it doesn't pass GNG, it's not notable. I appreciate that notability, being based on existing publishing models, is one of the sources of systemic bias -- but the answer to notability's systemic bias isn't to just throw it out the window for some subjects but not others (unless, I suppose, there is broad consensus to do so in a way that reconciles it with core policies). I do wish this could be resolved in meta discussions rather than regarding several individual examples on top of meta discussions. Typically for this sort of thing, we'd hold an RfC to sort out differences and find consensus, but that just happened. If people simply refuse to acknowledge it, and the problem is widespread enough, is it possible the issue is enough in the space of behavior (as opposed to content) that it's something for ArbCom to weigh in on? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Inquiry Do any of the Delete voters have a "rule of thumb" for the types of secondary schools that are kept? Is there any guidance beyond GNG, even provisional? Power~enwiki (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Blame the editors that pushed the circular logic of OUTCOMES for years creating this artificial bubble of poor content, not the editors who determined that OUTCOMES is no longer valid. If you don't want the bother of judging if the subject passes GNG, then don't visit these AfDs. Ultimately we have a group of longtime Wikipedians who want things their way against the consensus and I don't think that's wise. The RfC determined that only GNG applies' there is no SNG for schools. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Power~enwiki, my rule of thumb is no different than any other org: are there sources? Do they talk about the school? Are they (reasonably) independent? If the sum total of information I can gather from available sources (online and on-wiki) is "this high school exists" then it fails GNG and thus I would nominate for deletion. Primefac (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not want to enter into the arguments about the RfC, although I think the outcome is some what of a mess. Readers want to know about Secondary schools and whether famous people attended them. So, for me, the question is whether we can write a reasonably detailed account of the school from available sources. This school has produced three people who have articles. The sources are sufficient to write a decent article, even though one is not independent, and the current version is reasonable. I think it should be kept. Let us concentrate on articles that are much worse than this one. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment The RfC cannot be the consensus, because the rfc stated that there was basically no consensus for anything ,leaving the matter completely undetermined. Thes ituation was straightforward enough before the rfc made it confused beyond human understanding, thos I do think the closer honestly though they were making sense. If we're not to descend into the earlier condition of random decisions, we needs to have some degree of consistency. Most schools of this type are notable, and when it's in a less developed country, the assumption is that itd just our inability to find sources. Thecriterion is sourceable, not immediately sourceable, and it would have to be proven that it is not ,wheich woudl require a competent search in the necessary language and in print publications. Noone here is asserting they've done that. I've finally found a logical meaning for "presumed" notability--it means notability unless you can actually show otherwise. There will be some rare condition where you can, such as showing that all other schools of this type in that country have abundant findable sources.

I note an absurd statement by a ed above, whichI paraphrase as "if you don't accept my way of looking at the RfC, don't participate in the discussion". That's presuming a great deal upon one's similar understanding. Even when I am sure I'm right, I never say, if you don't agree with my premise, don't join the argument. That's Ownership, and WP does not work that way. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC) �[reply]

That is simply not true. The RFC clearly found that "[s]econdary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist" and reiterated that "[e]ditors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist." The RFC was closed by four respected, uninvolved editors. If you believe they were mistaken, ask for a review at AN; if you dislike the outcome, open a new RFC. Feigning incomprehension of the plain wording of the close is unacceptable. Rebb ing 12:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) because the rfc stated that there was basically no consensus for anything you keep saying this. why? the close is pretty clear -- it even included a summary to make it clearer. If you have a problem with the close, the appropriate thing to do would be to challenge it, not to say it doesn't say what it clearly does or that it's not clear enough so you're going to ignore its existence.

The close said "we find that the community is leaning towards rejecting the statement posed in the RFC, but this stops short of a rough consensus. Whether or not the community has actually formed a consensus to reject the statement posed in the RFC is a distinction without a difference - Either way the proposed change will not be adopted." -- in other words, there is no broad consensus for the statement that secondary schools should be presumed notable if their existence is verified. This was then added to the summary as "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist."

It went on: "Over the course of the discussion, the conversation expanded to include the proper role of SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES in an AfD makes the circular argument 'We should keep this school because we always keep schools'. This argument has been rejected by the community. Therefore, while SO remains perfectly valid as a statement of what usually happens to extant secondary schools at AFD, SO should be added to arguments to avoid in AFD discussions. Rationales that cite SCHOOLOUTCOMES are discouraged, and may be discounted when the AFD is closed.

It goes on to say that they require a deep search for sources, saying that "Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them." And says AfD shouldn't be flooded with school nominations because of the RfC (the former, of course, is just "seriously, WP:BEFORE", and the latter is a behavioral issue that is only relevant if someone starts mass nominating).

How does the above amount to "basically no consensus for anything"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:24, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Squish The Fish (Book)[edit]

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

I don't think this meets the criteria for sufficiently notable books. I'm unable to find reliable third-party coverage of the novel itself and I believe the book is self-published since I can't find any trace of another book published by "Bottoms Up Publishing". Pichpich (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I could not locate anything to satisfy the WP:NBOOK criteria. Gongshow talk 17:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per the author's Linkedin page it's as good as self-published given that he works at the publishing company. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything to show that this book would pass NBOOK either. The book is listed at CreateSpace, so it's definitely self-published. Being self-published doesn't mean that a book can't be notable, but it does make it extremely unlikely since there are thousands upon thousands of self-pub'd books and very few outlets that can or would review them that would also be seen as a RS on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not even close to being notable. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't really put it any better than what's already been said. TimothyJosephWood 13:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 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 Brigham Young University#Graduation honors. If anyone disagrees with the redirect a WP:RFD discussion may be started. (non-admin closure) f e minist 10:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BYU Honors Program[edit]

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

Not notable--just like similar programs in other universities. Promotional, in the sense that it will be of interest only to prospective BYU students--or to graduates of the program and their immediate families. . The language reflects this , for example, "bring out the best in undergraduates of unusual promise." or " Its goal, according to university president Ernest L. Wilkinson, was nothing less than to "cultivate the best young brainpower in the nation" "a testing ground for innovative and new ideas" Almost all sources are of course from BYU. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely promotional, unless references can be provided showing it is individually notable Aloneinthewild (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Promotional issues have been resolved since AfD nomination, and remaining content is fact-based and valuable for inclusion, and substantial enough to warrant its own page. 32.97.110.61 (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Power~enwiki (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Brigham Young University#Graduation honors. I'm not seeing any compelling reason for this to have its own article rather than a section as part of the university. TimothyJosephWood 12:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

a/c the article, it is entirely separate from graduation honors DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom that it is not individually notable in and of itself. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:41, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The International Playboys[edit]

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

Non-notable band, no sources. 2013 AFD closed as "no consensus" due to lack of participation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added some references to the article. This ain't a major band, to be sure, but there is sufficient coverage in reliable publications to meet WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 02:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Mostly local coverage, but just about enough wider coverage, with more linked from the band's website here. --Michig (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I’m a bit on the fence with this one. I’ll give these sources credit: unlike so many similar WP:BAND articles on small, marginal bands, with a couple of exceptions they are at least third party and not blatantly promotional. My reservation is they are nearly all small time, insignificant sources, placing them more into the WP:E=N category. On the other hand, the Allmusic write up, while small, is legitimate. Although Allmusic as a source has considerably weakened in recent years, becoming essentially an online catalogue for any music that is available for retail, this entry was authored before the decline when they had more legitimate editorial standards. Still, it is the sole evidence of notability in my opinion. With just one or two more strong sources it could put them over the top, and I will gladly change my vote to keep. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:43, 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 02:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 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) Winged Blades^Godric 03:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy's Hands (band)[edit]

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

Article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and no strong reliable source coverage to support it. The strongest notability claim here is that they were an influence on other more notable bands that post-dated them -- but that isn't actually sourced at all, and the rest of the referencing is pretty weaksauce at best: two obituaries of the lead singer, one glancing namecheck of their existence in an article that isn't about them, one library directory entry showing that the University of British Columbia library has a tape of an interview the dead lead singer once did on the University of British Columbia's campus radio station (but NMUSIC makes a special point of deprecating student media sourcing as not able to bring the notability in the musical domain), and one album review on AllMusic. So that last is the only source that actually counts for anything at all toward getting the band over WP:GNG, but one source isn't enough to pass GNG all by itself — based on the fact that one of the obits is in The Globe and Mail, Dave Wenger literally has a better chance of clearing NMUSIC as an individual than the band does of clearing it as a band, and even a biography of him still wouldn't be a slamdunk if the obit was the only good source that could be found about him. Bearcat (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added to the article a pair of reviews from Punknews.org and Exclaim!, both of which are considered reliable at the Albums WikiProject. These sources, plus Allmusic, offer enough coverage to meet WP:BAND, albeit not by an overwhelming amount. Gongshow talk 22:41, 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 02:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found some citations that bolster what Gongshow added, namely, their low commercial success but apparent lasting influence in the scene. There's an interview where Dave Boeckner of Wolf Parade states he played with them for awhile (hence people assuming an influence on Wolf Parade). Johnny Pollard of Daddy's Hands founded Atlas Strategic with Boeckner. Other members have gone on to play with other scene bands or artists. Basically it kind of seems like they're one of those bands that served as a hub or a nexus in the scene, and with Gongshow's added reviews, I believe they manage to pass WP:NBAND. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:30, 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) Winged Blades^Godric 03:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eugen Drăguțescu[edit]

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

Uncited for ten years. And searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage needed to show they pass WP:GNG, and nothing to show they meet WP:NARTIST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We need citations to verify, let alone show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Searching for "Eugen Dragutescu" in the Dacoromanica archive of Bucharest Library produces 12 results, with in-depth coverage, much of it in high-quality books and periodicals (notice for instance Revista Fundațiilor Regale). I myself have used a serious work of scholarship mentioning him in at least one article. Here's some more in-depth coverage. Drăguțescu is not non-notable, just forgotten. Dahn (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to the above, I would note that, in 2014, Romania's state mint issued a commemorative coin featuring Drăguțescu. While that's not prima facie evidence of notability, it is one of those things - if a sovereign state decides to mint a coin honoring someone, that person is very likely to be notable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I venture to speculate that one of the reasons why Drăguțescu is less studied today is because he was (marginally?) involved with the fascist regime of 1940, and, while others were able to recover from this and were even official communist artists (Alexandru Ciucurencu falls under this category), he fled abroad. Apparently, he also hid his involvement from his colleagues in the diaspora, or they chose to forget it -- note for instance that he drew a portrait of Benjamin Fondane, who was as opposed to fascism as anyone can possibly be. But that said, he was very predominantly covered in sources of 1940, some of which are just now being made available to the public. I went ahead and read the (aforementioned) article in Revista Fundațiilor, which I now used in expanding another article. It confirms indirectly that Drăguțescu was quite heavily promoted under fascism, and that his work was featured in the top national exhibitions of the day; the author of the piece identifies him as one of the rising artists under the fascist regime. His contribution there is also covered by Universul, whose staff chronicler called his drawings "very beautiful" and reproduced his self-portrait (on page 6). I think this also constitutes significant coverage, as controversial and blurry as the matter still is. Dahn (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article can be expanded with material from the Romanian version of the article, which cites a monograph. Mduvekot (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the coin is legit; see for example:

Eugen Dragutescu artist was born on May 19, 1914 in Iasi and died in Rome in 1993. Although his designs were popular in the country after the communist regime in Romania finally left, moving to the Netherlands and then in Italy. It became famous abroad for his illustrations of books, especially in Shakespeare, but the country remained almost unknown.

Source: "National Bank issues a new coin". This is highly suggestive of notability. Additional sources are likely to exist in Romanian. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obviously I can't verify most of the sources myself, since I'm American and thus only allowed to barely speak one language, but the Romanian article is plenty enough for me to want to err on the side of preservation. TimothyJosephWood 12:54, 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 keep. WP:NPASR applies. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 03:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Rieger[edit]

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

This is a biography of a singer who works pretty hard to push a social media campaign to become famous - I do not see that he meets WP:NMUSIC, however. A large number of followers on Twitter or Instagram is not proof of notability. I have looked at German-language sources, and the de.wp version of the article (which is the origin of the en.wp article), and not found any significant coverage, even for the incident in Ulm. There are a couple of sources for him being called "the German Justin Bieber", but many more sources giving that (questionable) epithet to another German singer. Finally, the chart positions for his album Compass are not for any charts mentioned in Wikipedia:Charts, as far as I can tell. bonadea contributions talk 10:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NMUSIC #2 by having an album charting #4 on Billboard German Albums. The English page is a direct translation from the German Wikipedia article on the artist, but the wiki link to the English version and refs weren't included. The Ulm inccident is reported by Spiegel Online here. The comparison with Justin Bieber is made by Noisey on this article. Just needs some serious work. Wapunguissa (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Keep Power~enwiki (talk) 07:34, 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 Neeraj Vora. If anyone disagrees with the redirect a WP:RFD discussion may be started. (non-admin closure) f e minist 10:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Run Bhola Run[edit]

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

No source for release of the film is given in the article plus was in making in 2009. Better nominated for deletion. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 10:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page is having valid references; the film might get released or it might not. Why should the page be deleted if there is always an unreleased films category?Rajeshbieee (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreleased films generally aren't notable, and this doesn't meet WP:GNG Power~enwiki (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NFILM. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Neeraj Vora: The article presently has plenty of citations. The film has received some coverage. Better redirect to the director's article. After all, redirects are cheap. This might get a limited release sometime later. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:11, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grandfather Birds[edit]

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

Can't identify any claim to notability, seem to be a local band with sparing coverage in press that never went anywhere. KaisaL (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:27, 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 (✉) 14:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NBAND Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, flunks WP:NBAND. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:01, 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 Celebrity Cricket League. These are viable search-terms. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 05:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karnataka Bulldozers[edit]

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

Celebrity league is a local Indian league so it's cricket teams are never notable. Greenbörg (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete all per nom. They fail WP:CRIN. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as it looks likely that this related AfD will end as keep, then redirect all these to the parent article as possible search terms. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete if Celebrity Cricket League is deleted. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:09, 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. sufficient consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

West Suffolk Independent[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly sourced article about a local political "party" which isn't really a party; it has no party manifesto and no party discipline, but just amounts to a banner for independent candidates to unify under on the ballot while still acting independently in their campaigns (and in their offices if they win). And for sourcing, all we actually have here is raw tables of election results, and glancing namechecks of its existence in routine election coverage that isn't about the group. Note that first discussion closed no consensus due to no participation. There simply isn't enough substance or sourcing here to make this a thing that warrants an encyclopedia article. In addition there's a direct conflict of interest here, as the article was created by a user named "Elocnomis" — read that name backwards, and then note that the candidates listed in the article include a "Simon Cole". Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TNT, and also WP:GNG. This is not an organized group, it is a political party of convenience for several individuals who aren't themselves notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and given the clear conflict of interest, also WP:ADV. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:Power~enwiki. I could barely find any online sources to suggest that, currently, this party is anywhere near notable. Maybe in the future it will become so, and then we can expect to see a short, neutral, non-COI-written article about it. But this is not it. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability, clear COI issues. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:41, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Holden (voice actor)[edit]

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

I cannot find any sources that discuss the subject in detail. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As this is an unsourced BLP and in addition to the lack of sources in the article itself, I can find nothing elsewhere other than a fan-wiki. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NACTOR. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actors are not automatically entitled to have unsourced Wikipedia articles the moment they've had one role — if you're going for "notable because roles" rather than "notable because awards", then it takes a WP:GNG-passing volume of reliable source coverage about him and his roles to get there. No prejudice against recreation if and when he gets there — but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hardly a blip on the WP:ENT. Only one role according to Behind the Voice Actors and the site doesn't even verify it with the green check-mark. [30] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have a reference. I am the creator. It's from imdb. EddyReady (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- EddyReady iMDb is not a reliable source nor is it the coverage necessary for an article. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. Just delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddyReady (talk • contribs) 22:35, 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.

[1] ttps://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/cornell-university-2711

[2] ttp://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/10/cornellians-teach-model-un-two-nyc-high-schools

[3] ttp://bestdelegate.com/cornell-model-united-nations-conference-cmunc-2012-liveblog/

[1]

[2]

[3]