Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 May	19 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) 22:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rewan Amin[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 06:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:09, 21 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) 09:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Please nominate categories for deletion separately from articles, at WP:CFD. (non-admin closure) f e minist 13:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Years in motoring[edit]

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

For all articles in this category(and the category itself because it will be empty):This is pure, unsourced(in one instance: one fact is sourced)WP:OR. Delete the junk.Burning Pillar (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC) Burning Pillar (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Burning Pillar (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - These "xxxx years in motoring" are unreferenced articles that mention only a brief and narrow perspective, as well as no context. In other words, there is no real value to the readers. The related category is also superfluous. There is no definition of "motoring" as it typically refers to the act of driving motor vehicles. However, the articles focus on the manufacture of new cars. Moreover, these descriptions seem to be short and random selection naming various car models that were introduced or marketed in a few markets. There is a far more detailed source of information in this topic among articles that are listed under Template:Automotive industry. These include more referenced details about the automotive industry events within national markets. These provide much greater value and background regarding the "motoring industry" in particular markets, in contrast to these "motoring by year" stubs. CZmarlin (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of this is grounds for deletion. The facts could easily be sourced and more information added to give a wider perspective. Timelines and events-by-year pages are a well-established part of Wikipedia. There are publications such as Automobile Year and Australian Motoring Yearbook which treat the car industry on a year-by-year perspective. It's clearly not original research: all this is well covered in the motoring press. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this is WP:JUNK, all these articles are WP:SYNTH of events. Which events from the Automobile Year and similar publications do you want to include in the article? All of them? Your personal selection?Burning Pillar (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Motoring is a notable topic. AFD is not cleanup. The articles could be improved, but that's not a reason for deletion. Also, the category should be proposed at WP:CFD, not here, though if all the articles are deleted, it could probably be speedied. Until then, the category should not have been nominated for deletion at any venue. Smartyllama (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not clear how this is OR. Doesn't meet any of the deletion criteria in WP:NOTDIR. As stated above, AFD is not cleanup. If something can be cleaned up, it should be cleaned up rather than deleted. South Nashua (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Colapeninsula, Smartyllama, and South Nashua:. AFD is not cleanup. That does not mean that we have to keep every junk, especially not this: These articles are the author's personal WP:SYNTH about what the author deemed important for these years. They cannot be assumed to resemble properly weighted articles about what happened in that time period; most of them only include cars, which means that they are effectively spreading MISinformation. Burning Pillar (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Burning Pillar: If there are inaccuracies or POV, you're encouraged to correct them. "Year in X" content is fairly common on Wikipedia, I'm not clear how this is any different. South Nashua (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted above, AFD is not cleanup. Lepricavark (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP? Let me provide you a different part of this essay that does not support you:WP:HARMFUL, which expicitely states that the lack of reliable sources is a VALID deletion criterion. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP is directed towards normal problems, especially format, grammar problems, WP:DEADEND, or minor issues with our content policies that do not justify removing the entire article. It is not directed towards unsourced, suspicious articles. Burning Pillar (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quit with the badgering, please. Lepricavark (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ad hominem is not a valid argument.Burning Pillar (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - You seem to be more interested in arguing than in building an encyclopedia. I have better things to do. Lepricavark (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IDONTLIKEBURNINGPILLAR. Other than that policy, I also agree with User:Colapeninsula. There are reliable sources which support having motoring articles on a year-by-year basis. Articles need referencing, not deleting. Jevansen (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. Unsourced does not equate to non-notable/OR. These lists contain notable events about notable companies and milestones within the motor industry. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:NOTCLEANUP. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominator, (Burning Pillar) has failed to provide any valid reason for deletion. We do not delete articles because they need improvement. We delete articles in cases where by their very nature they cannot be improved, but that does not apply here. As of the time I am writing this, we have 8 Keep !votes and 2 Delete votes, and one of those delete votes has a rationale that would be better solved by choosing a better name for the articles that does not use the word "motoring" rather than deletion. This can be done by any editor without an AfD discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTCLEANUP is an essay, and it does not support the claim(see WP:NOHARM).WP:V is one of our core content policies. It seems that WP:AFD has a WP:Local consensus trying to subvert our core policy WP:V(which mandates an inline citation for challenged article content).Burning Pillar (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But you keep using WP:JUNK for your deletion rationale. Which is an essay. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither WP:JUNK nor WP:ATA are always inappropiate in deletion discussions. They only start to be inappropiate if they are used in a manner contradicted by established policy. Then you have to give something more(as argument) than just mindlessly linking a part of an essay. In this case you have to argue with a core content policy(including WP:V) or a Pillar(including WP:IAR) itself(because I brought WP:V into the discussion). In addition, this essay even contradicts the claims and is being misapplied, as you can see under WP:NOHARM(I also want to point you towards the fact that I am NOT the only one favouring deletion).Burning Pillar (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something in this discussion about WP guidelines? My suggestion is that everyone please read the actual content of these series of articles. It is true that there are many WP articles that describe various topics organized by their annual events, for example the wide variety subjects listed in "Category:Categories by time". However, that is not the issue with these series. Rather, the major problem is the actual content of these articles. Most glaring is the title of each of them: the "Years in motoring" that is clearly misleading. As I noted in my initial posting here, the definition of "motoring" is typically accepted as meaning '"traveling in a car, especially when considered as a recreation"' - [see here]. However, the content of these series of articles consists of a mostly limited and completely random sketches of new car introductions in a few major markets. There already exits a more comprehensive source for that type of information under "cars introduced by year". Perhaps these articles should be renamed and would then be more correctly placed under the "Category:Cars introduced in XXXX". Another problem are the suggestions that we need to keep the articles because they can be improved. It is possible to improve anything, but is should be better than starting from the current random musings about the automobile marketplace that have nothing to do with the subject of driving. Rather than wasting time on arguing about the value of keeping these series, they must be completely overhauled to focus on the the subject of their title, which is a discussion of driving (especially for pleasure) in cars by each year. Such information would be valuable and interesting to trace the changes affecting motorists (such as with driving regulations, taxation, roads, infrastructure of roads and bridges, etc.) across the world. However, expanding and referencing the existing content would mean changing the title to reflect the "automobile introductions in various world markets by year" and putting them under the Timeline of motor vehicle brands. As far as the current content of these "Years in motoring", I think it could be all merged into the existing "Timeline of motor vehicle brands" article. Cheers - CZmarlin (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I struck my !vote at the top of this thread and replaced it with a fuller explanation. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I closed this AfD discussion this morning as a procedural keep because it is listed as a category discussion, not realising that there are a large number of articles being discussed here. Per discussion at my talk page, I've reopened the discussion, but would ask that an extra 24 hours be allowed before it it closed again. Therefore, this discussion should not be closed before 23:43 on 26 May. Mjroots (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Burning Pillar; the next time you nominate multiple articles, please list them under one of the articles, not under a category. Doing it the way you did it sets off alarms because you cannot AfD a category. Those go to MfD. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – this seems to be a case where the articles should be improved, not deleted. Just because no sources are mentioned, doesn't mean none are out there. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:48, 25 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. Procedural keep. (non-admin closure) f e minist 13:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Timperley[edit]

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

Not notable. Fuddle (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep You wanted to merge it a few hours ago, now you want to delete it? Pursue what was suggested in the first nom; this is a second nomination that was put up too soon. Nate • (chatter) 23:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I used twinkle. I've never had a problem before. Fuddle (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. You only just proposed a merge, which is obviously more appropriate than deletion. --Michig (talk) 05:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Close discussion. There's obviously no serious or reliably sourced basis to keep this as a standalone article topic separately from Chris Sievey, but AFD isn't the place to propose a merger, which is what the nominator did the first time — and the moment that discussion was closed for being in the wrong venue, the nominator immediately initiated this discussion. Just close this discussion and do the merger thang. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep: per Nate. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:39, 25 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Latkovskaia[edit]

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

Not a notable person. Article created for self-promotion purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.252.143 (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

Created for IP using rationale from declined PROD. ~ GB fan 22:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; nothing exception here; occasionally speaks at local engagements and appears on local TV. Big deal. TJRC (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially an advertisement. As typical for advertisements for lawyers, focuses on her specialties--a little different from most advertisements here for lawyers, lists them three times . Repeats the word "philantrophist" four times, with not the least evidence, except that she gives talks on elder law--which is the normal way attorney promote their practices. : G11 would also have been appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 27 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HelioHost[edit]

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

References consist of routine mentions or links to the company's website. A Google search didn't turn up anything that looked like substantive discussion in independent reliable published secondary sources (Twitter, Facebook, personal blogs and reviews, etc., yes). KDS4444 (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in the talk page, a lot of my research for this article was interviews from the source such as with Ashoat Tevosyan. I used the various news posts from the company website over the years to piece it all together and make a timeline of events. Also like I said on the talk page I think the subject of this article should be considered notable enough because of longevity: they have existed for over 12 years, and number of worldwide users: they have had something like 600,000 different users over the years. If anyone can find any better references I would be glad to do the work of incorporating them in to the article. Another issue is I only speak English, and since this is a worldwide company with hundreds of thousands of non-English speaking users there might be some independent reliable published secondary sources that are in other languages. If someone can do searches in languages other than English I think that could be helpful towards getting this article properly cited as well. Thanks. Krydos 02:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all you are a bit close to the subject as you are part of a small group of support administrators. That means you have to hold yourself to a high standard while editing this article because other people will. Your interviews with the founder and operator are not notable, as you are not notable for the purposes of the Wikipedia reliable source context. The news articles published by the source are not a reliable source any more than a press release (advertisements) is. A subject existing for a long time or having a lot of users doesn't make it notable, independent mentions of the subject (for example in news) makes it notable. 75.170.196.192 (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I've been finding quite a few mentions of HelioHost from a variety of independent sources since this article was originally considered for deletion. A student working on his doctorate wrote about the subject in his thesis paper. I found a published book about the subject. The subject was described in an online magazine. Another guy wrote about the subject at great length in a published academic paper. All I have presented are the facts which are verified by multiple sources. If you have any suggestions on how to make the article better we would all love to hear them. Krydos (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- advertorially toned article largely cited to non-independent sources. Sample:

This server was designed to separate Helio Networks main websites, helionet.org and heliohost.org, from the user content, and provide DNS nameserver service. On March 25, 2011^[1] the second VM on Charlie was released, which was named Johnny. Shortly after this ASP.NET, Java/JSP, and Ruby on Rails was removed from the Stevie server to reduce load, and only offered on Johnny. From this point onwards the Heliohost administrators have made it a priority to keep Stevie with as high of uptime as possible. Only a few months in the last 5 years has Stevie had less than 99% uptime.^[2]

References

^ "Johnny Launched". 2011-03-25. Retrieved 2016-07-10. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
^ GRD, Piotr (2011-03-25). "HelioHost Server Monitor". Retrieved 2016-07-10. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

Also note the ext links in body. In general, the article contains excessive intricate detail reminiscent of fan pages. This content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of your quote do you not like? The part about the uptime? That can be verified by an independent unrelated source. That Piotr GRD has no affiliation with HelioHost, lives in Poland, and maintains uptime statistics from several different hosting sites. The HelioHost admins don't have access to edit or delete the information his website presents even if they wanted to. Thanks for giving a concrete example of something that doesn't belong in the article! It seems most other people just want to delete the entire thing without even really explaining what is wrong exactly. Krydos (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How much of the article can be edited while this discussion is taking place? I know the rules say the article cannot be blanked, but can I delete everything cited from helionet news, and just leave the information that independent sources have published since that seems to be the problem? Krydos (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. an inappropriately detailed article for an encyclopedia . This is a minor hosting service, and the article deals with the details of the nature and operations of each of their three successive servers. It's a nice research proejct on a small enterprise, but it doesn't belong in `w . DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 27 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. clpo13_(talk) 21:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Corkery[edit]

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

Cannot find any reliable sources of information for this person whatsoever. Homechallenge55 (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being the 'Tails voice' for 2003 might have pushed this past WP:N in the old days, but their career pretty much is nothing but minor guest roles and direct-to-video things few saw, and now that's not enough. Nate • (chatter) 23:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NACTOR Rogermx (talk) 15:36, 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 delete. Sandstein 14:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Tenerelli[edit]

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

Non-notable contestant who insists they "deserve a profile". Delete and salt. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I deserve a wikipedia page since I was 3rd on my season and that is higher finish than Grant Mattos, Mike Chosl, Matthew Elrod, Ashley Underwood, and Andrea Boehlke who each have one, so I deserve one too. I also be on a reality show other than Surivor which none of those ever have, even if Andrea was back on Survivor, but again not making finals like I make. And I worked for Los Angeles Clippers franchise as a dancer. So all around my body is work and famous and more deserving than the other top finishers of my season but not me have one too, not fair . I also really was 2nd since I would have crushed Phillip who came 2nd in a jury vote, all 8 who voted Rob were voting me over Phillip, or anyone else had they made the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalieten (talk • contribs) 20:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect and maybe protect it, which seems like the more logical option here. SkyWarrior 20:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is more to life than having a Wikipedia page. I note [1] for the page creator's benefit, and Template talk:Survivor (U.S. TV series) contestants for the benefit of other reviewers. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Subject may have sufficient coverage from independent reliable sources to meet the simplest WP standards for notability... A quick google search turns up [2], [3]. Also article reads self-promotional. The bit at the end about being good friends with other contestants - why is that there? IMHO needs to be re-written and referenced with enough independent RS to satisfy WP standards for notability. Cllgbksr (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The tone of both the article and the author presents a strong possibility that this is merely the work of a troll. The subject in question may be deserving of an article, but let someone who's actually serious about giving her one write it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.239.128.232 (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is nothing noteable about this individual enough to warrant a wikipedia page. If being a 1 time goat on one of the worst seasons of Survivor alone was enough than Sherri Biethmann and Albert Destrade would have wikipedia pages, and they dont. Ryanlochteboy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This individual just isnt relevant enough to merit a page, sorry. On a Survivor site I go on we are all laughing someone actually tried to make a wikipedia page for her. That about sums it up. The page says it all too, like 2 lines of info, that is all one can muster on the obscure subject. User:ConwayMarty 22:35, 18 May 2017 (EST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marčel Hudima[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, and this is actually close to a G7 for failure to assert notability. The stat pages linked don't actually reference this completely NN player as having played any games, and he's certainly never played at any level with presumptive notability. Ravenswing 21:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons listed. The Turkish team he played for might also be worthy of deletion as it was created by a biased account, has no notable sources and is orphaned. Yosemiter (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pangod Temple[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not have sufficient notability to be included in Wikipedia. A web search turns up no significant independent coverage. Article creator, User:Pangod Temple, has an apparent COI. Peacock (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly a candidate for speedy deletion, as notability has indeed not been established. --Yamla (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to focus on the building, so out of scope of A7. Agree that notability or even significance has not been established. Appable (talk | contributions) 18:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the lack of any online coverage. The organization's online page yields no coverage or alternative names; I searched for a few variations on the full name of the temple but none showed any coverage in online sources. Appable (talk | contributions) 18:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom and the above comments. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:GNG. No evidence it passes my standards. Bearian (talk) 01:32, 24 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 14:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qian Bochu[edit]

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

Fails GNG, NPROF. Prod removed, recommending a check to see if the textbook he wrote is notable. I couldn't find anything about it. Indeed, it's not clear what the name of it is here. I found the title of another textbook he wrote, but notability there is not clear either. South Nashua (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Evidence of notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 21:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Netoid function[edit]

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

This function is just the logistic function with particular parameters. It seems likely that the article creator and main contributor was one of the authors of the main reference used in this article. I can't find any reference to this topic outside of the one provided, so it seems to fail notability. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was tempted to recommend a re-direct to either the article on the sigmoid function or the one on Metcalfe. But I found no real-world sources that link this name to the sigmoid function and our article on Robert Metcalfe doesn't mention it, either. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:38, 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. Sandstein 13:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 NY Times Square attack[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not news. This event occurred today in a high-profile location in New York City; however, it is quite presumptuous to call it an "attack" or "terrorism" (note the category on the article), and indeed it would appear that the local authorities currently consider it to be an accident ([4], [5]). This is an unfortunate, tragic event, but it does not rise to the notability criteria for events. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete TOOSOON. This may become notable as things unfold, but as stated in the nomation, this falls under NOTNEWS. South Nashua (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better with a weak keep? I think it might be better to just have the article the next 7 days. If it doesn't become notable in one week, we can still delete it.--Rævhuld (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have a reasonable argument. As it was before, the article didn't have enough to survive, but I was on the fence. I think it does now, even if NOTNEWS makes my support shaky. It'll be worth checking back in a few weeks. For now though, I am a Weak Keep here. South Nashua (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the tag stays there for seven days, an administrator will check the article and delete it if he or she agrees with your reason.
— Wikipedia:How to delete a page#Proposed deletion

Delete. if there were a speedy criterion ,it would apply,. This is not even remotely encyclopediaworthy, and is exactly what NOT NEWS is meant to keep out. DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but let it run the full week to see if notability emerges. Even though there there is 1 dead and over 20 injured, and it was in Times Square, news accounts are reporting that the driver was either on drugs or drunk, and has a record of DWI. ~~It looks like NOTNEWS.~~E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC) changing iVote to k; see belowE.M.Gregory (talk) 10:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia is not news. Local auhorities currently consider it as an "accident", and not as an attack. If investigation reveals something, the article can be created again. But wikipedia must not label accidents as attacks or acts of terrorism. I am also going to perform a bold move of the page. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS comment: Not sure if I should move the page/rename article while it is being discussed here. Requesting help regarding that issue. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK it's not explicitly prohibited but it's probably not a good idea either. If consensus is to keep then I think a move would be in order. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear whether the incident is a terror attack, though initial speculation was that it was accidental.
— Business Insider

We don't know if it was an accident. If we just keep the article for 7 days, as it's usual, the article might be notable or will be deleted. And to your question: no, the article shouldn't be moved before this discussion is over.--Rævhuld (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the tag stays there for seven days, an administrator will check the article and delete it if he or she agrees with your reason.
— Wikipedia:How to delete a page#Proposed deletion

(edit conflict) @Kuyabribri: But during that period, incident that is considered to be an accident for now; wikipedia will be stating it is an attack. I think it should be renamed, and then mentioned here.
@Rævhuld: I just checked, it is allowed to move articles during an AfD. Better than soreading hoaxes.
@Oshwah: requesting your opinion. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article for the next 7 days, as it is usual. It might be relevant, just as 2017 Stockholm attack, 2016 Berlin attack and Quebec City mosque shooting. It depends on the investigation. If the investigation shows it's irrelevant, we can just delete it in one week.--Rævhuld (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Rævhuld (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

If the tag stays there for seven days, an administrator will check the article and delete it if he or she agrees with your reason.
— Wikipedia:How to delete a page#Proposed deletion

Keep New information has been realeased that this was a murder and that he did it on purpose Parzival1919 (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- About that, people do say the stupidest things while drunk. epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: User:Parzival1919's original !vote was to delete, and then changed it. While changing an !vote is definitely allowed, using strikethrough is the preferred method of doing so, per WP:REDACT. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. I should mention that another article on this also exists. SkyWarrior 20:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have moved the article to 2017 NY Times Square incident despite this AfD because it is not clear whether this was an intentional attack or an accident. I apologize if this has caused any confusion. Mz7 (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. I would be tempted to propose a merge to 2017 Times Square vehicular attack, but there really isn't any content to merge it with and plus I'm not sure if the later article is notable either. Either way this shouldn't stay here. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWS and (most importantly) WP:EVENT. Events that are notable for an encyclopedia are those that have caused, impacted, or were a major contributor to - significant cultural, historical, governmental, societal, and/or global impact and with lasting effects. Examples would be the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake, and other such significant events. This article not only fails WP:EVENT by a long shot, but also falls under WP:NOTNEWS. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this article is deleted, we should probably delete 2017 Times Square car crash as well, for the same reasons presented here. SkyWarrior 20:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Note: All right, to resolve a bit of confusion: the article at 2017 Times Square car crash (formerly at 2017 Times Square vehicular attack before I moved it) duplicates the subject of this article. Since that article has the same subject as the one under discussion here, I would like to procedurally nominate it too and include it as part of this discussion. Mz7 (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Thank you. I was about to do that but you beat me to the punch. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Kuyabribri: Was just about to add the AfD tag, but you beat me to that. Mz7 (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Times Square with information added to the article. I believe that it is notable due to the amount of people injured or killed, as well as the scene of the incident. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 20:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is per WP:TOOSOON. I would also be open to a Redirect to like a list of auto accidents or something. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per WP:RAPID. There is often a rush to invoke WP:NOTNEWS or WP:TOSOON as soon as an event unfolds, yet there is nothing that precludes us from keeping the article for another day or two to determine the persistence of the news coverage. If, either now or in the future, a consensus is reached that this topic does not meet notability guidelines, I would support delete and merge into Times Square. A major accident resulting in numerous injuries in Times Square should, at the very least, be noted in the article specific to Times Square. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 21:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Not yet indication of sustained coverage necessary to satisfy WP:EVENT/WP:GNG. As usual, WP:RAPID is not a keep rationale, as it's canceled out by the immediately preceding section and has no actual connection to the subject (i.e. it applies to anything that just happened). And as usual, no prejudice against recreation (even undeletion) if there's sustained coverage. But we're WP:NOTNEWS. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck for now. Seems like this has several stories spinning off from it that give a pretty good indication of continuing coverage. Not quite at keep yet, but enough doubt in my mind to strike my delete. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:TOOSOON, WP:NOTNEWS. Not a notable event until something happens (if anything0 to make it notable. Until then, it's just a garden-variety car-crash. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I would like to say that there is little that is typical about this incident. One person lost her life and 22 people were injured. There are more casualties in this incident than there are in a typical car accident. I find that to be notable. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 22:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but not true. Sad to say, but a fatality in a car crash does not make it notable, since there are something like 30,000 fatal car crashes every year. The 22 injured is more unusual, but is simply because it took place in a very crowded area and not on a highway. So far, there's nothing about this event which is unique. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day. An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled.^[1] For every 1 person killed in a motor vehicle crash, 8 people were hospitalized and 100 people were treated and released from the ED.^[2] But I don't that having 2-3 times over average people hospitalized is enough to make it important for Wikipedia.--Rævhuld (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Road Crash Statistics". International travel, road crash, pedestrian safety, country road condition. 2013-11-24. Retrieved 2017-05-18.
^ CDC; CDC (2014-10-07). "Motor Vehicle Crash Injuries". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved 2017-05-18.

FWIW I think it's a mistake to take this in a direction of debating what sorts of accidents/contexts are significant or unique, and which are not. Ultimately, the circumstances, uniqueness, etc. don't matter to whether this is kept or not. All that matters is that it receives significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject over a period of time (etc. per WP:EVENT/WP:GNG). If it's unique, particularly devastating, etc. then it's only more notable in the sense that those sorts of events are more likely to receive the necessary coverage. Wikipedia is supposed to be a lagging indicator of significance, so there's (or there's supposed to be, anyway) a pretty high bar for covering something that has not existed long enough to demonstrate lasting significance (i.e. Wikipedia should not be among the first media to cover a subject). passing that bar would mean there's practically no chance that it won't receive lasting coverage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep It is too soon to know the details, but WP:TOOSOON does not apply to breaking news stories as far as I can tell. That this story is currently worldwide news is making it potentially notable (for now), simply because we don't know the full picture. (Here in the UK we're currently hearing it might have been a drunk driver, and a terribly sad incident.) WP:BREAKING has been met by means of the current event template. WP:RSBREAKING and WP:BREAKING both advise waiting a day or two for accurate news stories, and not rushing to create content. However, unless we invoke speedily delete, or push editors towards WikiNews (I see nothing there yet!), we can't stop this happening. Therefore, we should wait for the AfD period to expire, during which time we will all be able to determine whether WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies, and remove it if appropriate so to do. Later opinions in this AfD thread may well end up bearing more weight than the earliest ones.Nick Moyes (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as "authorities were quick to reassure the public ... that the incident was a car crash and not terror-related" ([6]) so the event does not appear notable. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. I would normally vote !keep on articles like this, but the article is an especially flagrant violation of WP:NOTNEWS, ~~since its probability of passing the ten year notability test has yet to be determined.~~ It's a regular drunk driving car crash. It was tragic, yes, but there was no more malicious intent behind it than a person who even decides to drive while drunk. There are 10,000 deaths like this every year, yet we don't include articles for them all. At best it mentions a passing mention in the Times Square article. epicgenius (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment: How can something be an especially flagrant violation of a policy if you then say the probability of it passing a policy on notability has yet to be determined? If it has now been determined, of course, I might then be agreeing with the first half of that assertion. What we need is a Move to WikiNews template. Is there one? Nick Moyes (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: The preliminary evidence suggests that it was a drunk driving, not intentional. However, the definite cause is yet to be determined. And no , move to wikinews doesnt exist. epicgenius (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

struck part of original comment epicgenius (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunate and tragic though it was, the fact that it wasn't terrorism related means it is unlikely to stay in the news on its own steam. --regentspark (comment) 01:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an unfortunate incident, but I doubt very much it will prove to have any lasting note. It's already fading from the news by this evening. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One dead isn't a lot, but twenty injuries is a few. The famous setting gives it some oomph, and there are plenty of rhetorical questions for news outlets to ponder when it comes to crazy sailors. Was he secretly crazy when he enlisted, did long hours at sea cause the voices, should society do more to help, should government do more to monitor, etc. Give it a week, and if it's still "local man crashes car", delete it. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're applying a standard appropriate for what is newsworthy to an encyclopedia article. This is not a news outlet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying the news will apply that standard, and that'll provide us with our enduring coverage and in-depth analysis standards. The "scourge" of synthetic marijuana is also a fairly sexy topic; this might become the thing lawmakers point to most. Might not. Let's see. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Excellent example of WP:NOTNEWS. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC) Keep- Time has shown that WP:NOTNEWS no longer applies and that his is a notable event. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Too soon for the article namespace, but don't want to lose valuable content in case this is notable. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 07:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since all the content came from news sources, it will all be available should it need to be reconstructed. Given that, there is no need to save it as a draft. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The facts come from news sources. Formatting, contextualizing and paraphrasing them into content takes time and effort. An online draft would at least let those who work on developing high-profile broad daylight crowd-ramming articles work together. And it would better suit the "delete for now" bunch to track when (or if) it becomes noteworthy enough. Can't do that if the Keepers are all writing individually in Notepad/TextEdit/Whatever, and it's hard to want to write anything from scratch if they think a Deletionist will delete it for being too recently deleted already. Once it's been burned twice, forget about it! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 'Twas a traffic accident. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 10:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis for legitimate barristers to decide that. For now, police say he tried to kill 21 people. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A nutter with a car who wanted to die. WP:NOTNEWS. WWGB (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Paleo Neonate — 13:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete It sounded like terrorism, the location is a hot target, everyone wants to be the first to write about it.... but as the excitement fades is it notable? It is still on the front page of CNN. I think as it unfolded and was investigated it was generating "buzz" but now will fade away as just another tragic vehicular manslaughter.Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second-degree murder doesn't mean manslaughter. Third-degree used to. Second-degree is no accident, just more spontaneous than first. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep We should wait some time, like others said. If it goes away then, then we should maybe delete it. Calicodragon (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable road accident. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- All road accidents are notable for being reported in the news. Therefore, this is not particularly notable. (Yeah, kind of self-defeating and circular, but that is what WP:NOTNEWS is about.) epicgenius (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This one is notable for (allegedly) being a murder and mass attempted murder in an unusually public space. There's an obvious difference between a routine brief and a New York Times feature. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is this article is notable because it's located in a more densely populated area as opposed to a rural highway somewhere. However, a car crash in a city will naturally have more news articles about it than a comparable car crash in the country, precisely since the car crash in the city is closer to more news sources. epicgenius (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a guy tried to kill 21 people on a rural highway, that'd be notable, too. News organizations aren't tethered to their headquarters. Even in 1988, they had networks capable of reaching Old Salisbury Road. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. But the road is less densely populated, which makes the deaths more likely to be premeditated murders in the case of Old Salisbury Rd. I think we should just wait a week or so (the length of the AFD) to determine whether this is still notable afterward. epicgenius (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The not guilty verdict in that case actually made them not premeditated murders. Fixed now. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, never mind my comment then. epicgenius (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is indeed a tragedy, but it's not encyclopedic, certainly at this point and based on the sources available. I'm not even sure the incident merits a mention in the Times Square article. Alansohn (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer content to WikiNews and also Delete from Wikipedia. I have struck out my earlier opinion as this is now clearly WP:NOTNEWS, and also initiated a proposal at WikiNews on whether a way ought to be found to allow templating of an article with good, WP:NOTNEWS content which would benefit another Wiki if they were alerted to it, rather than simply losing all that useful content at the end of RfD discussions here. Sounds like a dead duck though, thanks to Wikipedia's content licencing. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's clearly notable based on the sources. (A "road accident" is notable or not depending on how much attention it gets—it has nothing to with whether you personally think it should be considered important.) Everyking (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We're not !voting delete because we "personally think it should be considered important", we're !voting delete because it's a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. SkyWarrior 00:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. NOTNEWS doesn't mean you get to just delete anything discussed in the news no matter how much attention it gets. Most of the delete votes essentially amount to "I don't think this is important and people really shouldn't be giving it so much attention". Of course, we should let the sources decide what is important, not our individual preferences. Everyking (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. All that policy says is most newsworthy events don't qualify, giving routine news for an example. This happens to be newsworthy, but also meets all criteria in WP:GNG. If newsworthiness itself was grounds for disqualification, every event article would be a violation, especially the post-Wikipedia ones. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: All the criteria except one, WP:SUSTAINED. epicgenius (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As these are always lacking at this point, even when Muslims do it. As of now, there are plenty of stories from various major outlets in the last two hours about ongoing investigations. I'd say that counts as "off to a good start". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but this begs the question, why can't it not be mentioned on the main article for Times Square? Why does it need its own article specifically? That is the issue being discussed here. epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason Khalid Masood's rampage can't be solely mentioned at Palace of Westminster. Too many sources have too much info exclusively focusing on that particular event, its motivations and repercussions. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The difference here is that there's not as much information about the car crash as during the London attacks, or during other attacks where this was done with a terrorist intent. epicgenius (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks about the same to me, discounting the rampant speculation about whether and how the intent could somehow be linked to terrorism. In Masood's case, it ultimately couldn't, rendering much of that "information" pure noise. Since this suspect's still alive, it makes sense for the news to exercise relative restraint, since solid answers will be forthcoming at trial and can be reported then instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Everyking: What NOTNEWS says is that Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Like this newsworthy event. Although tragic (and covered by national media), it probably doesn't pass the ten year test the same way that something like 2016 Nice attack does. All the sources basically say that there was a driver under the influence, and while under the influence, he ran over pedestrians in a particularly high-traffic place. However, if there had been a strictly terrorist intent, this would obviously be kept. epicgenius (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 00:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There are some indications this might lead to some changes in Times Square. [7][8] If this happens then it would probably be notable. ^Falling_Gravity 00:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a good keep reason. If the incident leads to a redesign of Times Square, then it would warrant a mention in the Times Square (or a Redesign of Times Square article if the redesign is extensive). However, we won't know that for a long time, years perhaps. In the meantime, all we'll have is an article about a single tragic incident. --regentspark (comment) 13:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've added the mentions of possible changes to the main article about Times Square. My edit had a passing mention of the event. epicgenius (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this incident was a car attack, not a car accident. - EugεnS¡m¡on 07:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stronly keep. According to the perpetrator the act was deliberate and thus not an accident: "Driver in Times Square rampage shouted 'I wanted to kill them,' prosecutors say" https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/05/19/times-square-accident-vehicle-rams-charges-filed/101868394/# Being an attack the article about the incident must be kept. Metron (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant international news coverage and continuing coverage nationally.Michael5046 (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came to Wikipedia to read on this. If deleted, it would have be bad to human knowledge. This article meets Wikipedia regulations by having widespread coverage not only nationally in the USA but also in other countries. WKP1 (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for weighing in. I hope the delete voters will reflect on your comment. Everyking (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was initially leaning toward delete when I first came across this Afd a couple of days ago, but additional developments and the resulting continuing media coverage by reliable sources do grant this incident lasting notability.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sorry, but the "keeps" here are all still blowing around in the winds of the moment. There's no concrete proof at this time that this was a deliberate attack, just a lot of speculation, rumors and partial information. Calling this an "attack" in order to justify having an article about it is vastly premature, and the media coverage is already beginning to fade away. To the closer: the "delete" !voters have all cited specific Wikipedia policies for why this shouldn't be an article, while the "keeps" all boil down to "it's a news story, so we should have an article" which is part of no policy that I'm aware of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is dealing with a moving target, and the notability of the incident is becoming clearer as coverage of the incident is proving to be more intense and more sustained that it would have been if it was a run of the mill DUI. Observing this is not "blowing with the winds of the moment". As far as whether it was a deliberate attack, Rojas has been charged with second degree murder, so if it goes to trial, that can be sorted out there.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do articles and wait for the subject to become notable, we do articles on notable subjects. If the subject is not notable, there should be no article, period. If it later becomes notable, an article can be written. We are not a news services, we are an encyclopedia, and if there's any doubt about the subject's notability, deletion is the proper course of action. Again, "keep" !voters have failed to cite a single Wikipedia policy to support their !votes, so they amount to WP:ILIKEIT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, we do not wait for a subject to become notable. There is no dispute that this incident has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, but what is in question is the "enduring notability" of the incident, and whether coverage is in-depth and not in passing, per WP:INDEPTH. In most cases, this can only be properly assessed a few days after the event at the soonest, which is why WP:RAPID recommends waiting a few days before nominating an article for deletion. However, the coverage this incident has received is in-depth, is no longer just in passing, and it has become clear that this incident does have enduring notability.--Tdl1060 (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that is a totally ridiculous assessment. The incident occurred just 2 days ago, there is no way in hell that "enduring notability" can have attached to it. The plain fact is that the article should never have been created in the first place, and should have been immediately speedied when it was. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the article probably should not have been created when it was, per WP:TOOSOON. Police were still treating this as an accident at that time, the media was reporting on it as a likely accident and possible DUI, and there was no assurance that this incident would have enduring notability. However, just as WP:N(E) says we should not rush to create articles on breaking news events, it also says we should not rush to delete articles on breaking news events, as a clearer picture about the subject's notability will emerge with time. In this case, as time has passed, it has become clear that this was not just a routine DUI or a routine car accident. The incident has received sustained coverage over three days, with no sign of that coverage ending any time soon. Per WP:PERSISTENCE, editors can't know for certain whether an event will have further coverage or not, but just because an event occurred recently does not mean it is not-notable.--Tdl1060 (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (above, I voted delete) This news hasn't gathered "international attention". It was briefly mentioned on a few news channel when it happened as "suspected act of terrorism". Later there was another passing reference that it wasn't considered as an act of terrorism anymore, and investigation is going on. That's all. Indian media has already forgotten it.

Also, the article has a lot of content now, it is well sourced, and in encyclopaedic tone. But it still is a road accident (tragic one though). I don't think it is notable. It will be all forgotten in two months. Not notable event. WP:EVENT. Events that are notable for an encyclopedia are those that have caused, impacted, or were a major contributor to - significant cultural, historical, governmental, societal, and/or global impact and with lasting effects. Our druggie driver's road rash will never achieve these feats mentioned above. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (also ! voted delete above): Multiple delete !votes are saying that there is no way this is an accident. None of the news articles did say it was an accident, and none of the delete !votes said as much. But it's not an attack either, just a drug induced crash.epicgenius (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Police are treating this as an attack and reliable sources are calling this an attack [9]. Attack just means that it was intentional. There does not have to be any terrorist connection for it to be an attack.--Tdl1060 (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tdl1060: In regards to There does not have to be any terrorist connection for it to be an attack—that is true but the implications of using the word "attack" nowadays is that the crash was a terrorist attack, whereas "crash" says what it really was. It doesn't matter what the dictionary definition is; if a word provides an implication of something else, then it is a loaded term and should not be used. epicgenius (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're not discussing whether attack should be used in the title or within the article, we are discussing its use in this deletion discussion, so whether one considers it a loaded term, with an implication of something else is irrelevant. The term was accurate, as it was used in this discussion.--Tdl1060 (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it's not irrelevant. See WP:POVTITLE. epicgenius (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a deletion discussion, so WP:POVTITLE is irrelevant here. We're not discussing whether the page should be moved back to a title with the word "attack" in it, and whether we call it an "attack" is not relevant to whether the article is kept.--Tdl1060 (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're discussing whether to delete an article where !keep voters are claiming it's an "attack" and therefore it's notable. That's not necessarily true. I think BMK explained it well in the comment below mine. epicgenius (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also can't see the relevance. Various voters are calling it various things here, none of which should be taken to mean they want these words in the title. Is there a specific piece of that policy that clearly has to do with deletion discussions? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I thought we were talking about WP:TITLE. Oops epicgenius (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But even if it was intentional, that does not necessarily make it notable. Every murder is intentional (that's what separates it from manslaughter), but not every murder is notable and gets an article on Wikipedia. People go off their meds and push other people to their death from a subway platform. There's news coverage, but it ain't notable, no article. Wives kill husbands, husbands kill wives, domestic violence ends up in death - no article. We're not the police blotter, we're not "The News in Review", we're an encyclopedia, which is why we have notability requirements. Again, not a single person who wants to keep the article has given a Wikipedia-policy based reason for doing so, it's all "news coverage", which is necessary, but not sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that it was the individual's intent that makes it notable. It is whether the coverage of an event is significant and not in passing, per WP:INDEPTH, and the coverage of this incident is significant and is not in passing.--Tdl1060 (talk) 05:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What? Of course not every murder is notable, but some of them are. Most murders don't get news coverage that's anything like this. In any case, it's irrelevant whether it's a murder or an attack—the only thing that matters is the attention received by the event, reflected by coverage in reliable sources. If some guy got a flat tire and it got this level of media attention, that would be notable too. Everyking (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody feel like deleting Flat-Tire murders? Decapitalizing? Unhyphenating? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The massive media coverage and unusual circumstances, including the high-profile location and the large number of victims, clearly make this notable. —Lowellian (reply) 04:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Under what Wikipedia policy of "notability"? Please cite something specific, and don't simply wave your hands and say that news coverage makes it notable, that's not how we operate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that that is how we (here at Wikipedia) operate, WP:NOTABILITY means that if an event has been covered repeadetly from different angles, and my different "reliable" news sources that it becomes notable enough in itself, several news articles have been written about the perpetrator, and the one dead-victim alone, various interviews with her father, and his military veteranhood, and criminal records made public. This story has evolved beyond the mere mass-attack.

--42.112.158.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep changing my iVote for several reasons; struck my delete vote near top of page. one reason is that media coverage on a scale that confers notability. To me, this looked like tragic but simple dwi. I bow to the judgment of major media which have continued to cover the story intensely and in depth.[10] Even though this coverage will eventually fade, the notability conferred by this level of coverage is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. My 2nd reason is the one pointed out by User:FallingGravity; the incident has sparked a round of interest in the security of pedestrians in Times Square, and in other crowded New York pedestrian areas and sidewalks, with Mayor Bill DeBlasio saying that the city will review how to better secure these areas and media demanding more bollards. Deadly Times Square attack highlights NYC pedestrian safety[11].E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So why not redirect to Times Square with a mention there regarding security? That bit appears notable, the car crash/person who committed the crime does not (WP:BLP1E). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose redirect to Times Square for the same reason that I oppose redirecting school shootings to the article on the school, i.e., that it gives WP:UNDUE weight to a rare violent event. In this case, it is also true that the Times Square article is already very large.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At 66.2 kilobytes, I don't think the Times Square article is very large. All we need to do is add a sentence there about the crash, or even a paragraph; it can be done without going into a coatrack about the crash. I already added the stuff about bollards, which is probably the only lasting impact of this impact. epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's a relevant event, WP:NOTNEWS only applies if something has very low and localised coverage, (one can think of Alexandr "Russian Deadpool" Karpakov's shooting of girlfriend while on drugs, the leader of a non-notable Feminist & "Skeptic" (Atheist) group shooting someone out of paranoia, a Non-Hispanic Russian immigrant, if it had more coverage could've been notable, but that's a recent event in which I would say that WP:NOTNEWS would apply, this event has been covered by various different sources long after the vthe initial attack.) this event clearly isn't simply "a news story", it's now a part of history with plenty of coverage. --42.112.158.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 42.112.158.223 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: can everybody now acknowledge that this was not an accident, but a deliberate attack? This is what reliable sources are saying.VR _talk 18:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No one said it was an accident. A crash is not the same thing as an accident. epicgenius (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nominator (KuyaBriBri) said it was "an accident" in justifying the deletion nomination. But maybe that was before there was before there was information about the deliberate nature of this attack.VR _talk 03:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for two reasons. First, as noted above, this is a deliberate attack. It may or may not be terrorist, but it certainly was no accident. Secondly, this attack is proving up to be a wake-up call for pedestrian safety. In NYC, there's a lot of analysis and thinking going on as to how this happened, what prevented it from being worse, and how to mitigate it in the future. (See NY Mag, NY Daily, NY Post etc.) Thus, the notability of this attack is likely to carry on into the future.VR _talk 18:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for a few reasons; one, this was a large-scale attempted murder spree, which thankfully only resulted in one death in this particular case. There are a number of mass shootings that end up being posted on Wikipedia, which are not deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. The fact that it was vehicular should not make it worthy of deletion. Two, this person was severely mentally ill, and was denied psychiatric help, which is a major, noteworthy issue in the United States, which will likely lead to highly notable fallout as a result of this incident. Three, as others have noted, this can apply under pedestrian safety in Times Square. And, finally, the DWI part is also noteworthy, and, though the situation itself may fall under WP:NOTNEWS, the resulting fallout likely won't, and will lead to significant changes. The Legacy (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anything that looks like an obvious terrorist-style attack should be kept. As the driver was able to drive perfectly safely all the way to Times Square before executing his brazen attack, it is completely obvious and easily proven that his maneuver was not caused by any drugs, mechanical failure, voices, or suicide by cop. It was a planned, calculated mass attack in exactly the same motive as Islamist terrorists. There needs to be a category for attacks which are terrorist in method but lack proof of a link to a political motive. Bachcell (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few issues with this comment: terrorism is politicaly motivated, and secondly, we must report what sources say. When reliable sources don't clearly indicate it is terrorism, classifying the incident as such would be original research, which Wikipedia must avoid doing. Of course, if over time investigations and reliable sources demonstrate that it was, the article will be updated, or rewritten with that perspective. Even if the crash was voluntary, it could be a crime of another type like a revenge, honor crime or an incident because of psychosis or other causes producing delusion and hallucinations... When we don't know yet and can only speculate like I just did, we should simply summarize what sources say and let the reader infer. — Paleo Neonate — 03:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a deliberate attack as per the perpetrator. It generated far too much coverage to be ignored. Sds57 (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sds57.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no long term societal impact or lasting significance. Let's reserve such articles to the Manchester bombing for example. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also stated no long term societal impact or lasting significance, which is a perfectly good rationale for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast who those who claimed that "enduring notability" has already attached after only 2 days of media coverage, there is already a dearth of media articles dated today, an indication that the incident is slipping back into the background, and will probably only be mentioned again when Rojas comes to trial, or in the context of adding more safety features to TS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Things inevitably receive less attention as time passes. Everyking (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Story in the New York Times today about banning cars from Times Square in response to the attack.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The pre-trial proceedings will be covered, too. If he pleads not guilty, the trial will almost certainly be multiday. Then there's a verdict. Whatever it is, there'll be analysis. Maybe a sentencing or institutionalizing hearing next. Plenty of opportunity in prison or the bin for follow-ups. There are still victims left with potential recovery stories, too. Far less done and over with than when everyone dies at the end. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the argument that "Anything that looks like an obvious terrorist-style attack should be kept. ", backed up by a discussion of the evidence , would violate the principles of NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V. Something that "looks like" something that is clearly notable, but none the less is not, does not belong in an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as coverage is still ongoing, indicating the notability of the event. If it was a genuine WP:NOTNEWS it would have stopped by now.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Keep voting are embarrassingly unconvincing; basically, "the incident looks bad, we should keep it". Ensuring coverage cannot possibly be determined at this time. Look forward a few months from now and tell me if there is lasting coverage. We don't wait for articles to be notable: they either are or they are not.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAPID, and do note that it is routine for editors to create articles on breaking news stories such as 2017 Melbourne car attack, even though determining WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE would require a WP:CRYSTALBALL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAPID is not a keep rationale. It's canceled out by its immediately preceding section and has no actual connection to the subject (i.e. it applies to anything that just happened). And yes, making a claim of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE requires a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Hence, there is no evidence of continued coverage (there is not evidence of continued coverage until there is). There are exceptions to the rule -- effectively a pragmatic IAR -- when an event is so obviously significant that people are ok using a crystal ball, and what's at issue here is whether this is one of those scenarios when we're pretty sure it will receive continuing coverage (putting aside crystalball). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course. Don't think we would've been having this discussion if it was a religiously-motivated incident. Is this meant to imply that the perpetrator behind this one was motiveless? Mar4d (talk) 07:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it implies a reluctance to fear something familiar. For the most part in the English world, the dark cloud of jihadism and honour killings tend to be seen as something seeping in from outside, something that can be blown back if enough light is shone upon it. The dark cloud of drug abuse and schizophrenia is a Western staple of modern life, as has been since before we were born. Our eyes adjusted to our surroundings and our screens until many stopped seeing the problems.

But the problems remained, and thousands more have been killed by followers of the disembodied voices coming from inside their own heads and amplified through stress and chemicals than have been killed by those who listened to the voices coming from the Quran and amplified through repetition and minarets. So many more so, that the television-endorsed brand of terror simply stopped being scary. The druggie lunatic became a hokey caricature, progressively cornier from the 1970s on and then virtually overshadowed by the post-9/11 transmissions of doom and anxiety about the new constant threat (which still make casting a Bronx Navy veteran in the monster's role seem tasteless).

Since the Internet conquered television, we can see that many pockets do see the relative value in remaining vigilant about our mental health and appreciate the levels to which someone can sink through the cracks if left unwell and ignored, but to today's mainstream horror, mystery and suspense fans, it's Islamic terrorism or nothing. And in a way I can't blame them, because it's easier to get invested in a story that leads to logical conclusion than an angle that just drags, and America is conceivably way closer to wrapping up the War on Terror than going anywhere in particular with the War on Drugs. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable. Good sourcing. Got attention worldwide.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:58, 25 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) 22:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TRACE International[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines and seems promotional. The only sources offered seem to be press releases/announcements and associated sources. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per this essay and the lack of any reliable sources in the article.Burning Pillar (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Pillar, Please stop citing an essay that you wrote yourself as a reason for deletion. You have a clear conflict of interest and this behavior looks a lot like spamming. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the article talk page, the page creator(who has a COI) has consented to the article being moved to draft space for submission as a Draft or through AfC. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this product brochure, please. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. I've removed most of the article as it was unabashed marketing spam. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:36, 25 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. The merger discussion can be continued on the article talk page. Sandstein 13:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Side effects of penicillin[edit]

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

This seems like something that should be condensed and put on the page of penicillin. It doesn't need its own article. Leggomygreggo8 (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obviously the article is still under construction with much more content to be added. The side effects contained in the article Penicillin are incomplete, outdated and very limited. It is quite common to create articles that are specifically meant to provide detailed information related to the side effect of a medication. If you type in the words: "Side effects of" you will find dozens of articles dedicated to side effects. If you read the Pencillin article, you will see that it quite large and cumbersome and would benefit in making it shorter and easier to read. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 16:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into penicillin. It's a normal part of a article on a drug. There might be reason for a split if the matter is in some degree controversial, but it isn't. Nor is the Penicillin article longer than most articles on impt drugs. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a matter of controversy that is contained in the article about how one of the side effects is that penicillin is implicated in the development of antibacterial resistance. Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At least for now. A WP:AfD template was placed on this article just 15 minutes after a serious and committed editor (and a Wikipedian Visiting Scholar with a user history of legitimate work on medical articles) created it. I find it sad when there's such a rush to discuss deletion of serious-looking articles that are patently evolving from legitimate and committed users. (Of course, preparatory work in the user's Sandbox, or a word left on the article Talk page might have avoided this issue arising in the first place. Article creator: please take note) Its edit history shows that content continues to be worked on by Barbara_(WVS). I recommend letting that content evolve - it is doing no harm and is not violating any policies at present. The article on penicillin was not yet at the point where WP:SIZERULE suggests it might be acceptable to consider splitting (it has about 26k of textual content in a 47k article). I'd be happy to see a merge template on it (as per DGG), should it not end up appearing worthy of its own article - or it could become a "List of" page for side effects. But this is genuine content from a genuine editor - lets not rush to put this sort of contributor off, please. I'll be watching the new page and will gladly make the necessary recommendation if I'm not convinced it's going in the right direction. But it's definitely not yet going in the wrong one.Nick Moyes (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into penicillin. There is already an adverse reactions section on the main penicillin article that includes some of the information on this page. It seems better to merge the additional information and references into the main article to prevent the two pages from preventing conflicting information as new references/research are added to one or the other.PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you would say these things. New, relevant, and secondary sources references and research are lacking from the penicillin article - in a sense it would have been more difficult to change the side effects section than to begin a separate article. I first chose to edit the side effects in the main article, but it was so outdated, the section would have been empty. Again, there is more content to add and enough for a stand-alone article.

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 11:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had not been aware of the large number of side effect articles already present. That being the case, I agree with Barbara (WVS) that a uniform policy should be in place. I still think a merge policy would be the best, but whether merged or kept, it should apply to the other side effect articles as well.PohranicniStraze (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At the point in time that the article was nominated for deletion (Note that it was not nominated to be merged, which might have been more appropriate), 3 references existed along with a bibliography. As of this day, the references number 13 23. Content specific to side effects and not general information about penicillin are cited. I still maintain that there is enough information available regarding side effects for a stand-alone article. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 11:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

merge back into Penicillin. There are ~~some~~ a lot of articles where we have done a WP:SPLIT for adverse effects but there is no need here. Would have been better to propose a split on the Penicillin talk page first. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Jytdog is correct, we have consistently done splits on medication articles related to side effects with many stand alone articles that could be merged into the main articles on the medications. For example:

Maybe we should be discussing a policy change rather than just this one merge.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that we consistently do splits. I said we sometimes do and that you would have been wise to seek consensus for a split before you did this. I !voted to merge and still do. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article now contains 23 references that establish its status as a stand-alone article. None of the other stand-alone side effect articles, authored by Doc James, a prolific and highly respected editor are not being considered to need a merge. In addition, the other stand-alone articles contain references authored by the drug manufactures themselves and may contain material that would reveal a conflict of interest. All editors are considered to have equal footing, but perhaps some editors are more equal than others. I may be singled out here for some reason and I may not. I propose a change in policy in the stand-alone articles on medication side effects. Please respond to this proposal. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a subpage that goes into more detail on side effects. I am a fan of subpages if done appropriately. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:11, 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. joe decker ^talk 01:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SAVBeast[edit]

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

Fails GNG and MUSICBIO. Virtually identical content to that recently speedied as promotion. A source has been added, but it is just a few seconds of an interview in a YouTube video of a local TV station's newscast from 5 years ago. Nowhere near enough to show notability and I have not found much else. Has not even released anything yet. Note that that also appears to be an autobiographical COI article given that the user is User:SAVBeast Meters (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the infobox states that SAVBeast has only been active since 2017. Way TOOSOON. Meters (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cross checking using variants of subject's real name. This search came up empty. Not even a mention at BBC.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nothing at Allmusic.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable musical artist. - TheMagnificentist 18:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this autobiography clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per my above comments.Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an advertorially-toned WP:AUTOBIO, for a subject who has no credible WP:NMUSIC pass as of today. And since she's from Lloydminster, the one source cited here represents local coverage in her hometown media, which is not what it takes to pass WP:GNG (as I've said many times before, if one or two pieces of local coverage in someone's hometown media were all it took to get them into Wikipedia, then I would have an article and so would the woman a mile down the road from my parents who once found a pig on her front lawn.) As always, Wikipedia is not a free promotional platform for emerging local talents — I wish her well, but the equation goes "make it and then you'll get a Wikipedia article", not "get a Wikipedia article to help you promote yourself while you try to make it". No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when a proper notability claim, and the reliable sourcing required to support a neutral article about it, can be shown, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Anyone w/ fewer G Hits and less media coverage than I had at my heyday lacks significance.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I wasted our time by not just putting it up for speedy again. Oh well, we'll be able to use G4 in the future if needed. Meters (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did not, and yes, we will.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If an article gets speedied and then recreated a second time without improvement, it's generally better to escalate the recreation to AFD rather than just speedying again, so that we can add things like G4 speedy and/or WP:SALT to the toolkit in the event of another followup recreation. So no, nobody wasted anybody's time — this was the logical and expected response to a followup recreation. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Meters (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:32, 25 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. joe decker ^talk 01:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Smirnov (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Position as politician in Soviet times may establish notability, however sources presented are weak. Lack of independent sources for most claims in the biography, awards and charity sections. List of links not sufficient to verify any claims. Also, username of creator indicates autobiography. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deputy in the Supreme Societ is a member of a national legislature and is unquestionably notable. Other problems can be dealt with by editing. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on notability. However without reliable sources about this fact, wouldn't we be in WP:USI / WP:QS territory? _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 19:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In Russian WP his name appears in the list of Supreme Soviet members which is a historical fact. This article is actually a translation into English. I checked other personalities on the list and it's same story with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.152.9.145 (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The russian WP article was created on the same day, edited by the same authors and (as of this moment) is unreviewed over there. The source seems like a person's home made site on a hosting service. No indication of where this info is sourced. Verifiability is very limited. I believe under normal circumstances, this kind of source would not hold up to substantiate claims. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 21:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion with the usual problems. Delete per the reasoning in this essay; the sources can not be assumed to have been picked with the proper weight and they are dubious as well.Burning Pillar (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the essay you wrote? Stop with the shameless promotion of your vanity essay. At this point, I'm convinced you're a troll. Smartyllama (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not finding any reliable sources that confirm that the subject was a member of the Supreme Soviet. Keep if reliable sourcing of service is found. --Enos733 (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - most definitely was a deputy of the Supreme Soviet. @Enos733: see 1990 article [12], Directory - he's on page 37. Deletion is not cleanup. Don't nominate Russian articles for deletion if you are unable to do basic search. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable per all of the above. Contrary to Burning Pillar's assertion based on his self-promoted essay, AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sufficient evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:17, 25 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. Rlendog (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Artjom Abramov[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Ephemeral and undistinguished career in European minor leagues. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence of passing the GNG, the creation of a long-gone SPA. Ravenswing 02:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable subject. Lepricavark (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of this article is only twenty-seven years old and is not notable. The article lacks credible sources. Bmbaker88 (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:05, 25 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 14:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Empirical process (process control model)[edit]

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

Poorly written. Poorly sourced. Unhelpful title. Rather than rescuing this article, it would be easier to create a new article at empirical process control. Yaris678 (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nom is right, this is poorly and very partially written (from a Scrum point of view). Whether there's anything here to add to existing articles, I rather doubt, but given the very poor sourcing (most paragraphs are totally unsourced, the rest partial in both senses), we aren't losing anything worth saving. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winspire Magazine[edit]

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

Non-notable student magazine. Fails GNG, can find no coverage or significance. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly not notable. Ajf773 (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:A WP:SPA article by User:Winspiremag setting out the wares but providing no evidence that it is of note for an encyclopaedia. Nor are my searches finding better; fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Spam. . . .Mean as custard (talk) 10:02, 25 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. clpo13_(talk) 21:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chika Ibeneme[edit]

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

Aside being a commissioner for a brief period, I could only find passing mentions about the subject which isn't enough to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails major notability guidelines and is of no encylopedic value hence a !delete vote is best applicable here Celestina007(talk to me)
Keep National chairman of a political party in Nigeria. Notable as Per WP:NPOL. See also WP:POLOUTCOMES ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She fails every notes on WP:POLITICIAN. You should also note that WP:POLOUTCOMES is an essay not a deletion guideline or policy. From findings, she has never held any remarkable political position or ran for a political office and she has not received significant press coverage. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being the leader of a small, newly registered political party without existing representation in the legislature is not in and of itself a free pass over WP:NPOL — it would be enough for an article if she were the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG for it, but it is not enough to hand her an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of solid sources. But the sources here simply aren't cutting it: #1 and #7 are primary sources; #2 is a non-notable blog; #3, #5 and #8 are needless repetition of the same post to a user-generated discussion forum; #4 verifies a tangential fact about the political party she used to be associated with but fails to mention her name in conjunction at all; and #6 just glancingly namechecks her existence in an article that isn't about her. This is not the kind of sourcing that it takes to make someone eligible for a Wikipedia article. And no, this is not a systemic bias issue, either: Nigeria does have real newspapers that can support a proper GNG pass without needing us to give it some sort of "bad sources are okay because it's Nigeria" exemption. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Techlogix[edit]

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

Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY. Its first Afd was long ago. This will through to decide whether the company itself is notable or just the product is notable. Greenbörg (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not notable by current standards DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , cited sources are not reliable and independent. --Saqib (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of this article is not notable and the sources are not credible. Bmbaker88 (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Also if the company name is "Techlogix Pakistan" then that is where this article should reside. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:29, 25 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. clpo13_(talk) 21:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brick God Sosa[edit]

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

Aside failing WP:GNG ad WP:MUSICBIO, there is a WP:COI from the article creator. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, fails MUSICBIO, GNG. Not the worst failure of those two criteria I've seen, though. South Nashua (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have just reverted some badly formatted edits, some of which may have included new references. Please see article history for details. Murph9000 (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:sosaenter Should Not Be Removed Page Follows All Guidelines § — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosa Enter (talk • contribs) 01:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, COI. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:57, 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 merge to Manila massacre. clpo13_(talk) 21:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Fallon (Columban Priest)[edit]

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

PROD of grounds of lack of notability removed by author. Oh, and WP:NOTMEMORIAL TheLongTone (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Manila massacre. The killings of the Columban priests were part of the murders of 100,000 civilians by Japanese soldiers in a short period of time toward the end of the war. There is no evidence these men's deaths were more notable than the deaths of the others. Edison (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect - Per nom, WP:1E, WP:VICTIM and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Notwithstanding subject's other activities (missionary priest), references and claims of notability seem to relate substantively to subject's death. Per Edison, and with every respect to subject's own circumstance, the relevant guidelines (1E/VICTIM/NOTMEMORIAL) therefore would seem to apply. These guidelines suggesting that such content should be dealt with in an article focusing on the event - rather than an article focusing on the victim/etc. Hence merge/redirect to the article on the event. Like Manila massacre. Guliolopez (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge to Missionary Society of St. Columban#Extension of the mission beyond China.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:36, 25 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bang On Brewery[edit]

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

Another Article has any source whatsoever and therefore is ineligible for A7. I have half a mind to write up an RfC on this just to watch it fail.

Handful of puff local pieces and one passing mention in The Guardian. Patently non-notable local pub/brewery, despite their "unique and passionately created" ales, which apparently passes as a claim of significance. TimothyJosephWood 14:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Page reads like a puff piece and the brewery is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally promotional because it's little more than a Yellow Pages entry and that's what business directories are for, and because its full of promotional peacock terms. Should obviously have been tagged A7 and G11 - who's doing New Page Patrol these days? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง - It was tagged. Related discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Anyone welcome to join in, whether you agree or not. TimothyJosephWood 15:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I've added a few more references to the article. Some are better than others, but taken together they're enough to show that the brewery meets the general notability guideline, in my opinion. (The passing mention in The Guardian, mentioned in passing above, still has not been added to the article, but it could be.) For extra credit I've also toned down the promotional language. @Timothyjosephwood, Meatsgains, and Kudpung: I would request that your re-assess based on these changes. Thanks. — Mudwater^(Talk) 22:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed the lead even more but I maintain my vote to delete because most of the references included in the page are just local coverage. Meatsgains (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Unfortunately, removing the promotionalism has also removed all content except directory information and a product list. No reason to think they;'re notable DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 27 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) 22:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zuffar Haq[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. With an up coming General Election in the UK, this is pure election campaigning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Page can keep if/when Haq is elected. Meatsgains (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN there is no inherent notability in being a party's candidate in a upcoming election. FITINDIA 14:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being as yet unelected candidates for political office — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable enough for a Wikipedia article because of the election per se. But this neither establishes nor sources any reason why he would have qualified for an article for any reason independent of the candidacy, and it's quite plainly tilted at least somewhat in the direction of being a campaign brochure (vice-chair of the local Crimestoppers chapter? Who cares?) No prejudice against recreation on or after June 8 if he wins his seat, but nothing here qualifies him to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pilkingtons Buses[edit]

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

Non notable bus company, Found one indepth source[13] with the rest being trivial mentions, Fails NCORP & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 12:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CORP. Just a local bus company with no broader significance. LibStar (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant regional company . Rightly or wrongly, we have always been very inclusive for transportation, . DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG - Hundreds if not thousands of bus company articles have been deleted and I don't see why this should be any different, Ofcouse if you can find any indepth and reliable sources/coverage I'd happily withdraw. –Davey2010^Talk 18:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hundreds have been deleted, and hundred kept. I have always !voted delete myself for ones running one or two routes. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

because hundreds have been kept is not a reason for keeping as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG - Nope sorry to disagree but most have been deleted with a few being kept, With all due respect you !vote Keep on any transport article without even looking at the article or the sources (I'm not having a go but I'm just saying it how it is), As I said tho groans aside if you can provide indepth coverage I'd be more than happy to withdraw however a company running more than 2-3 routes isn't a reason to keep. –Davey2010^Talk 18:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how is it a "significant regional company"? LibStar (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only real coverage seems to be in the Accrington Observer, and there's not much even there. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's only available offline and I don't have access to it right now, but I recall seeing a lot of coverage of this company in Buses magazine over the years. Perhaps someone with a complete archive could check this out, because the online sources certainly aren't sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:D0:ED2B:E164:B2F1:6A5E:745F (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Just not enough sources to establish notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) f e minist 13:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Vladeck[edit]

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

Cannot find suitable sources to support an article for this person. Cited sources in present article are to a marriage register, several "On the topic of XYZ, Stephen Vladeck said..." type news articles where the subject is cited for a brief opinion, posts by subject on a law blog, and his faculty listing at the U Texas School of Law. There is no coverage of the person himself. ValarianB (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I started this article. Vladeck is a highly respected young academic, and qualifies for inclusion under WP:ACADEMIC.
Nominator's nomination states "There is no coverage of the person himself". Nominator ValarianB did you mean to imply we can't have a BLP on individuals when we don't know biographical details about them, like date of birth, place of birth, high school, children, etc.?
In this essay I offer the example of False Geber, an individual from before the invention of the printing press, when copying a book meant the very time-consuming transcription of every single word. False Geber published a new, scientifically important work under the name of a well-respected Arab scientist. Issac Asimov thought he was one of the 1000 most important scientists of all time. But we know nothing about his life, not his place of birth, religion, nationality, occupation. When someone measures up to our notability criteria, the lack of biographical details should not be seen as a justification for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit strawmanish to suggest a false narrative of my nomination argument and then knock it down. Minutiae and vital statistics aren't being sought here, just some form of in-depth coverage for a biographical subject to justify an article. I do not see any of the 9 criteria listed at WP:NACADEMIC being met by the subject. The student awards and positions appear to be excluded from consideration, per Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes, so the subject would have to satisfy WP:BIO if he fails the academics guideline. Also, I have no opinion on the personal essay, and do not consider it.ValarianB (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Criteria 7 says: "7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." Vladeck is one of the leading non-governmental counter-terrorism commentators. His opinion is one of the first sought, on controversial cases.
  WRT attributing strawman arguments to you. If I had acted as if I knew what you meant, and attributed a clearly false interpretation to your comments, that would be a strawman argument. If I ask a good faith question as to you whether you meant a particular interpretation, that is not a strawman argument, as all you have to do is clarify what you really meant. No harm, no foul. FWIW, if I honestly misinterpret your comments, in good faith, I don't think that should be characterized as a strawman argument, either.
  Is it still your position an article on an individual requires "some form of in-depth coverage" of mundane milestones? Geo Swan (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since that was never my argument in the first place, the answer should be self-evident. As for criteria #7, the criteria is "if the person is frequently quoted". One is not frequent. ValarianB (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I take your assertion you think you were clear, at face value. Could you please take at face value that I asked my question, to clarify your meaning, because I did not find your meaning clear?
      I am confused by your assertion "As for criteria #7, the criteria is "if the person is frequently quoted". One is not frequent." You strongly implied you did your best to comply with WP:BEFORE in your initial nomination, when you asserted "Cannot find suitable sources to support an article for this person...". You did try to comply with BEFORE, didn't you? The link to google news shows over a thousand references, including several that quoted him the day before you initiated this AFD. This Newsweek article quoted him six times.
      Finally, since your answer, above, didn't address this question, I am going to repeat it: "Is it still your position an article on an individual requires "some form of in-depth coverage" of mundane milestones?" Geo Swan (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are two possibilities--notability as an academic under WP:PROF, and notability as a commentator using the GNG. I added his academic papers and books--all of which have been frequently cited. I think that clearly shows his influence as a scholar, and no further analysis u is required. Not that it's a formal criterion, but the formal recognition from a third party, is his appointment by a leading school as full professor (there might be full professors in law schools appointed for other aspects of their legal work than scholarship, so this does not universally apply.) He probably meets WP:PROF by coauthorship of two widely used textbooks, as shown by their multiple editions. It's true the student awards are irrelevant to notability, and I edited the article to remove award-winning" from the lede. I suspect that a proper search would show he meets the GNG also, as I can't imagine that his widespread commentary on various media has gone unnoticed. Of course biographic detail is nice, but unnecessary--a notable person is notable because of the work they do , not by virtue of being born. Even under the GNG do not need in depth coverage of the person's personal life, just of the aspects of his life that bring forth notability. Discussions of his commentary would do that. DGG ( talk ) 15:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Besides his legal scholarship (which is likely enough for notability), he appears all the time as a commentator, either quoted or in op-eds. Here's WaPo, a Bloomberg podcast, Miami Herald, USA Today, Politico, LA Times, and CNN (which identifies him a as a "Legal Contributor"). And here's The Atlantic commenting on Vladeck's writing without directly quoting him. I don't think there's a serious question about notability here. agtx 15:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - prolific scholar, full professor at a top tier law school. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 24 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) 22:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karma (clothing)[edit]

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

A local retailer with no notability. Greenbörg (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:52, 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 (✉) 11:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not remotely notable by current standards DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unsourced & unremarkable; no claim of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 24 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) 22:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Epla Laboratories[edit]

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

A local company with no notability. Greenbörg (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:56, 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 (✉) 11:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. clearly promotional and with no evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 20:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTPROMOTION, as the article is fundamentally promotional in tone. Plus, the company did not receive significant coverage in reliable sources either, failing WP:GNG. --Dps04 (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete i did a google search 20 pages out and found no independent refs with significant discussion of them. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:23, 25 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. clpo13_(talk) 21:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tito Brown[edit]

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

WP:BLP, parked on a single source, of a politician whose only claim of notability is that he won a party primary to become a general election candidate for mayor. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself -- if you cannot show and properly source that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he does not become notable enough for an article until he wins the election. And for that matter, even if he does win the general election he would still have to be sourced well enough to clear the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our inclusion standards for local politicians -- at 66K, the city isn't large enough to hand him an automatic notability freebie just for existing if the sourcing isn't getting him past WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; but with no bias against re-creation if he wins the general election. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:01, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Healthcare market in the UK[edit]

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

Unsourced. Not well linked into coverage of healthcare in the UK - or elsewhere. There may be an article to be written on this topic, but this isn't it. Rathfelder (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR. — kashmiri ^TALK 23:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

delete so many strange pages in WP. Yes this is OR Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 24 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. clpo13_(talk) 21:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wale Ojo[edit]

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

Stub article about an utterly non-notable actor, created by a user who has done nothing but creating short articles about non-notable people, and !voting keep, with no policy-based reason, in AfD-discussions about similar articles created by similar single-purpose accounts, making me believe we're seeing paid editing. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:55, 17 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I do not really see the point of this nomination. Nominating an article on suspicion of paid editing is a valid reason, the only issue I have here is that there is no enough evidence to substantiate that. However, if this was based plainly on notability as your first statement imply, then that will be very laughable, because I think a simple Google search per WP:BEFORE would show this subject as notable. It's just like nominating an article for Jackie Chan, Wale Ojo is a top Nollywood actor that meets ALL the criteria of WP:GNGACTOR.

Meets WP:ENT by starring (lead roles) in Phone Swap, The CEO, Ayamma, Render to Caesar, Meet the Adebanjos, etc. Darreg (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meets WP:ANYBIO for being nominated or winning Africa Movie Academy Awards (nom), Nigeria Entertainment Awards (won), Best of Nollywood Awards, 2015 Africa Magic Viewers Choice Awards, etc.
Meets WP:GNG by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and so many other sources on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darreg (talk • contribs) diff

(edit conflict) It was nominated for not being notable, not for being suspected paid editing. As for WP:GNG, passing GNG is a basic threshold that presumes notability, but doesn't guarantee notability, especially not if the media coverage is totally unrelated to what an individual is claimed to be notable for (such as stories about marriage plans), an individual claimed to be a notable actor also must pass other thresholds, which brings us to your claims about awards, where it's clearly stated that being nominated doesn't count unless an actor has been nominated multiple times for a major award, which means that having been nominated once for Africa Movie Academy Awards, a minor award, doesn't count, the Nigeria Entertainment Awards are in themself utterly non-notable and doesn't count either, and the same goes for the other two awards (a magazine award and a viewer poll), leaving nothing. As for WP:ENT it requires an actor to have had "... significant roles in multiple notable films", and in my opinion neither of the films you mention above is notable, in spite of some of them for some reason having an article here (for the time being, at least). A Google search returns only a couple of stories about his marriage plans and similar gossip, BTW, plus user-created content on sites like IMDB, and none of what you claim above is even mentioned in the article, showing that the article creator didn't feel it was notable enough to add. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have stated a whole lot of wrong information out there, which connotes a lack of basic knowledge in this subject area. I just hope I will be able to express myself properly so you can can learn. Thank God AFD is for one week so we have enough time to straighten each of your incorrect understanding. I will start with one film-one award. Now explain to me carefully, how Africa Movie Academy Award is a "minor award" and Phone Swap is a non-notable film. Please for the sake of us having an insightful discussion and so that I won't get irritated I will appreciate if you can go through the references of AMAA and Phone Swap articles before replying me. You can also read the references from Cinema of Nigeria article, to get a general overview and broaden your understanding on where Nigerian films stand around world cinema. Regards. Darreg (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not stated a whole lot of wrong information, unlike you in your previous post, where you clearly show that you haven't even read the policies/guidelines that you refer to. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, I still want to know what makes Phone Swap a "non-notable film", and AMAA a minor award. Darreg (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Apparently the user thinks only Western awards are "Major", and only Western films are "notable".

Even if AMAA award can be considered a "major award", can you show evidence that he has been nominated multiple times to it or any other major award, or that he had significant roles in multiple notable films as required by WP:NACTOR? Or you are just trolling? — kashmiri ^TALK 17:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proves have been given already: The real question is do you consider Phone Swap, The CEO, Ayamma, Render to Caesar, Fifty (film), Meet the Adebanjos, that were all listed above, to be "non-notable" films? If yes, Why?! Do you consider: Africa Movie Academy Awards, Nigeria Entertainment Awards, and Best of Nollywood Awards, that have already been listed above, to be "non-major" awards? If yes, why?! We can start from there, then we can figure out the troll here :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, he needs to have played major roles in multiple notable films. Minor roles do not count. — kashmiri ^TALK 09:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just that you haven't explained to us, how his lead roles in those listed films are "minor". BTW, note that the "Keep" !vote above is by Darreg, not me. We are two different users. So be careful, next time you go about striking off !Votes, or claiming that there are duplicate !votes.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just as it has been pointed out above; a quick google search, shows a clear notability of the subject. There are several reliable and major sources, discussing the subject in detail (like here in The Guardian, here in Naij and here in Pulse Nigeria). Furthermore the actor has featured in the lead role of several notable films (some of the films have been listed earlier), passing the first requirement in WP:ENT. It is also important to note, that he is a major pioneer of the New Nigerian Cinema movement,per CNN; this also qualifies him for the third requirement in WP:ENT, which states: "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". As stated earlier, he has also been nominated/won several notable awards, thereby passing WP:ANYBIO. This AFD is sort of pointless to me; the notability of this subject is definitely not questionable.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely not yet notable enough for an encyclopaedia entry. — kashmiri ^TALK 23:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subject passes WP:ENT and WP:ANYBIO as stated above. This !vote is not policy-based. Darreg (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ALL the references you listed are one short interview and a few WP:TRIVIAL mentions (mostly his name only), directly making the subject fail WP:GNG. — kashmiri ^TALK 15:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the comment you're replying to, i spoke of WP:ANYBIO and WP:RNT, you speak of WP:GNG and made claims that suggest to me you're out to look for reasons not to keep the article, even though you're aware based on policy and with a little more research this article can and should be kept. This are the type of behaviour that should be seen in newbies not someone that has been here since 2006. It's very discouraging to find systematic bias being orchestrated and institutionalized by two editors who joined Wikipedia since 2006 and ordinarily should know better. Darreg (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On my talkpage you have made all kinds of claims about notability that when checked proved not to be true (such as trying to make me believe that "Africa Magic Viewers' Choice Awards" are sort of equal to the "Academy Awards", i.e. Oscars), and, just like some of your comments on this page, also showed that you obviously haven't even bothered to read the guidelines etc you link to. You have also tried to scare me away from articles that you seem to have an extraordinarily strong interest in, by posting multiple totally frivolous user warnings on my talk page, and even filing an even more frivolous edit-warring report against me at AN3, and when I challenged your actions you even tried to wikilawyer your way out of it, even though I know far more about the rules here than you do. And now, when all of those other attempts have failed, you're accusing your opponents of "systemic bias", and given the circumstances I don't think I need to ask you to clarify what you mean by that... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will ignore all your shenanigans and concentrate only on the AMVCA/Oscar statement. What I said was that AMVCA is being regarded as "African Oscars" by many reliable sources. The term is more like a sobriquet that media houses and followers of the award gave to it, the AMVCA doesn't even call itself "African Oscars", that even sounds so cliche to me. African entertainment industry is diverse enough to create thier own history and doen't need to lean on the success of western ideas. I'm very tired now, but a quick Google search produced the following 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [ladybrillemag.com/red-carpet-photos-make-way-for-the-new-african-oscars-africa-magic-viewers-choice-awards-amvca/ 8], 9, 10, 11. Note that in the reference provided, there are reliable sources from Ghana, Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa. I have contributed to at least 80% of all the African film awards and festivals on Wikipedia, so I am well vast in what each brings to the table. When talking of film award ceremonies, AMAA is the most significant of all, but even AMAA doesn't come close to AMVCA in terms of the following and popularity, probably because of the media power of MultiChoice. Darreg (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject passes WP:NACTOR and has had significant role in multiple films and television series both in Nigeria and England. This blog source by The Guardian newspaper discusses the subject and isn't an interview. The fact that the subject has won or have been nominated for multiple awards also shows that he is notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Thomas.W: This is the second time you're accusing Darreg of being a paid editor without providing proof. You previously denied that you were talking about him. Why do you keep bringing this up if you do not suspect him? If you do not have proof to back up your accusation, please refrain from stating it in AFD discussions. For your info, the AMAA is a major awards show on the continent of Africa. It is an awards show that caters to all of Africa, and not just to one country. As for the other awards show the subject has been nominated for, they are all notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608: Where do I accuse Darreg of being a paid editor? He didn't create the article that is being discussed here, it was created by user MKJ6006, so unless you're implying that Darreg and MKJ6006 are one and the same I can't see how you can make any connection between Darreg and what I wrote above... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for standing up for me Versace. I feel honoured that a veteran editor as yourself defends my interest. But I think Thomas was referring to the creator of the article not me, however I agree with you that he needs to take a "chill pill" on using paid editing at AFDs. This is the fourth Nigerian AFD that I have participated in that he is suggesting paid editing on User:MKJ6006. Paid editing is a serious offence here and should not be mentioned without strong evidence. Darreg (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[OT] Oh no, never. Presenting strong evidence of paid editing might get you blocked on Wikipedia, as it nearly happened to me when I got accused by a malicious editor of WP:OUTING a manager of an advertising agency. — kashmiri ^TALK 23:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: I am not implying that Darreg and MKJ6006 are one in the same. The reason why I thought you were talking about him was because I do not see comments by MKJ6006 in this AFD discussion. I also didn't check to see who created the article. I assumed that Darreg created the article because he is known for creating stub articles. Regardless of the current state of the article, the subject in question appears to be notable due to him starring in notable films and receiving notable accolades. One can't expect the subject to receive an Academy Award if they haven't starred in notable western films. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note There's a duplicate "keep" !vote in this discussion. I attempted to strike it out, but the editor in question replaced it. Pretty petty of them, but there you go. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347: Please note that the first "Keep" !vote on this page is Darreg, while the second one is by me. We are two different users. So be careful, next time you go about striking off !Votes, or claiming that there are duplicate !votes.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will I be asking for too much if I said I deserve an apology for being called "petty" by @Exemplo347:?

Keep Although the creator seems to be a sock and has a history of creating non-notable stub articles, this afd nomination is laughable. A simple search proves this subject meets WP:NACTOR per awards and nominations received in leading roles. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kepp Notable actor as per WP:NACTOR. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 17:38, 24 May m (UTC)

Keep my !vote is a keep due to information available on cyber-space which proves subject of the article is worthy of a stand alone article on the encylopedia. Now notwithstanding, this AFD is not in anyway "laughable" as termed by Oluwa2Chainz, reasons being, notability is relative & very subjective as so persons you may consider notable might not be notable to Thomas.W and if he decides to put it up for deletion he is very much entitled to do so. But just as said by Darreg, Jamie Tubers, Versace1608 the articles subject is quite notable and no matter the standard you have set @Thomas.W to assertain notability of any persons with stand alone articles, wikipedia provides us with primary yardsticks such as WP:GNG & WP:BASIC the article/its subject clearly passes this. This would end in a "Keep" obviously, you really aint need to push this any further, with that said, i would also want to commend your efforts on the fight against undisclosed paid editing & Sock puppets it is duly recognized.Celestina007 (talk) 21:305, 25 May 2017 (UTC

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Do or Die discography. A selective merger can be performed by accessing the page history. (non-admin closure) f e minist 13:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits (Do or Die album)[edit]

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

Lacks independent coverage and/or a notable chart listing. Basically, just a track listing for a compilation album. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge track listing to Do or Die discography; I can't find any reviews (although "Do or Die" and "Greatest Hits" bring up a lot of irrelevant results) and there's no real reason for this to be a separate article, and it's possible and useful to have the tracklisting for a compilation in the discography. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Do or Die discography where it is already mentioned. Fails WP:NALBUM. Unlike the non-compilation albums in the discography this one failed to chart. Gab4gab (talk) 15:00, 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 speedy keep. Basically nothing has changed since the last AfD. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 17:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. P. C. M. Babyland English Medium High School, Kokrajhar[edit]

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

No claim to notability, google search provides no coverage beyond just listing and a obscure case of child abuse. FORCE RADICAL (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This private school educates students through grade 10 and is affiliated with the Secondary Education Board of Assam. Editors who participate in an AFD have the right to determine whether a subject is notable.. I am merely noting that in my experience established and accredited secondary schools have adequate sources to satisfy WP:N when the search includes materials not instantly available online, such as newspapers from the region where the school is located. Edison (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIt is disruptive to renominate this article for deletion at this time when an AFD resulted in "Keep" on April 25 of this year. This is not a "pitch til you win" kiddie carnival game.Edison (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just for the record that "I have no relation with the two earlier nominators" in fact I was unaware of the fact there were two earliar nominations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forceradical (talk • contribs) 09:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found. The burden is on those arguing to keep to provide sources, not merely assert that they exist. James (^talk/_contribs) 19:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete. 3 weeks is is ordinarily disruptive after a keep, but the nom is apparently under the impression that consensus has changed. It hasn't, I suppose they are relying on the recent RfC. The recent RfC said first that there was no consensus to use SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and there was no consensus to change the rule that high schools are to be considered notable. That not very helpful close leaves us in the same state as before, except that we need to use a longer argument. That we consider them notable is part of a rational compromise by which we do not consider elementary schools notable. Before we had the compromise we had 10 or 20 afds a day on both,and the results were no better than random, depending on how much energy the proponents of each position had. If we want to clog up afd again with decisions that really don't matter, we can go back to then, and once more have a random selection. I think we need to concentrate our effort onto things that matter. DGG ( talk ) 20:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, I am not quite sure if you intend to !vote delete here. Your argument reads like keep to me, but I could be missing something. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how right you are. This is the result of simultaneously working on too many different dicussions at Del Rev and AfD. I;ve fixed it.Thanks for spoting it. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Was kept at an AfD less than a month ago. Another nom so soon is incredibly disruptive and bad-faith. AusLondonder (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @AusLondonder:It may interest you to know that I have no relations with the earlier editor .I did not even know there was an afd before this.Please do not judge this afd from that perspective that it is surely bad faith FORCE RADICAL On a insecure connection (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:32, 20 May 2017‎
  - For future reference, before you nominate an article for AFD, go to its talk page to see if it has previously been nominated. Had you done that in this case you would have seen "This page was nominated for deletion on 9 April 2017. The result of the discussion was keep." near the top of the page. Edison (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thinks Mr.Edison ! Will follow your advise from next time onwardsFORCE RADICAL (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources I brought forth at the last AfD that are enough to demonstrate that the school is likely notable. Secondary sources show that it had a major sex abuse scandal and was also considered a prestigious school in the region. That is enough to pass GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Withdrawing nom. But entrusting @TonyBallioni: with the headache of including the sources in the article and expanding itFORCE RADICAL⭐^⭮@ 05:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I don't see what's changed from the recent AfD that closed as "keep". K.e.coffman (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To The New[edit]

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

not notable. the refs are mentionsand press releases, and from the description of the company, there is no reason to expect better. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC) � DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A week ago I spent time reviewing the existing references, found that most were interviews and tagged them accordingly. I tagged the page as possibly not meeting notability guidelines and started a conversation on the talk page outlining my concerns. I also did a quick Google search for the author's name which revealed unambiguously in the first couple of results their relationship with the company. The article is self-published. So far, there's been no declaration of COI from the author, and the author has not replied to my comments on the talk page despite clearly knowing what one is for. Since a week has passed and there's been no sign of effort to improve the issues with the article that I have flagged, I support deletion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable commercial blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:53, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lorca Cohen[edit]

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

The content reads as a biography with nothing in it that suggests notability. The lead lacks a statement that supports notability, nor is any noteworthy event or accomplishment to be found elsewhere in the article. The citations that mention Cohen are primarily about events surrounding her father or the fact that she chose to have a child with Rufus Wainwright. Some content appears to have been written by Cohen, herself. See History: 23:21, December 16, 2016‎ 2605:e000:905b:ed00:299d:2192:e4c4:d507 (talk)‎ . . (8,234 bytes) (+55)‎ . . (Fixed some mistakes and added my second child.) User:HopsonRoad 13:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is the autobiographical edit Fixed some mistakes and added my second child. However I don't think one edit condemns the article. - Bri (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly weak keep. Leonard Cohen contains "She shot the music video for Cohen's song "Because Of" (2004), and worked as a photographer and videographer for his 2008–10 world tour.", which could be added here. There are enough independent refs for sure, and I think her life, though mainly of note in relation to others, is weakly notable. A mother adding a child we missed off is surely no argument for deletion. If not kept, merge to the men's bios. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I concur that the four closely timed edits, apparently by the subject herself, do not condemn the article. They add to a sense of misunderstanding by the contributors, regarding WP:Notability. Being the videographer of an artist's world tour or shooting a music video does not by itself create notability. Critical discussion of that body of work in WP:Reliable sources would be an indication of notability. Leaving mention of Cohen in other articles is fine. User:HopsonRoad 14:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Point of order -- @HopsonRoad:, when we have an article on an individual who measures up to our inclusion standards, and we learn the subject of that article, or someone else in a COI position, has added content that genuinely lapsed from our COI policy, that never "condemns" the article, because it is trivial to simply cut truly lapsing COI material. Geo Swan (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The nomination is based on an assertion which I think is simply not supported by policy -- namely "content reads as a biography with nothing in it that suggests notability". I think nominator is trying to say Cohen is not notable because she has no huge genuine accomplishments.
We should not regard accomplishments, in and of themselves, as what makes individuals measure up to our wikipedia inclusion criteria. The most important factor, when calculating whether an individual measures up to our wikipedia inclusion criteria -- is whether reliable sources talk about them.
When we have conformed to policy, we routinely have articles about individuals who don't have a genuine record of accomplishments, because they have been covered in sufficient detail about RS. The flip side is true, as well. Lots of us know individuals, or know of individuals, who have daunting, impressive accomplishments, who, nevertheless, do not measure up to the wikipedia inclusion standards, because reliable sources haven't written about them. Geo Swan (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note: blp1e definitively does not apply. Lorca Cohen is the individual who played a key role in detecting the crime that robbed her father of his fortune. That is clearly one event -- a significant one. Lorca Cohen agreed to bear a child with her friend Rufus Wainwright -- a birth with highly unusual circumstances. That is clearly a second event. When there are two or more events the blp1e doesn't apply. Geo Swan (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate Geo Swan's good-faith contributions to the article and comments here. The main source of guidance for this discussion should be Wikipedia:Notability (people), which states, in brief, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage [my emphasis] in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable.... People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not."

I appreciate that the additional criteria that engender notability for most WP:BLPs are not mandatory. So, let's look at the two events for which notability is claimed, the discovery of the misappropriation of her father's funds and her conceiving of a child with a notable musician. In the first case, the father is the subject of the reports, the daughter a supporting figure. In the second case there is coverage with the subject in the headline in two cited articles, one from the Guardian and the other from the Daily Record, so this has more strength as a claim. In another instance, she is mentioned as a curator of an exhibition about her father. Note that the Leonard Cohen connection was covered primarily in North America, whereas the Wainwright one was covered primarily in the UK (with a parenthetic mention of a visit to the subject's shop in the NYT). Therefore, the Venn diagram of any notability doesn't appear to span the Atlantic.

I suggest that Geo Swan strengthen the WP:LEADPARAGRAPH, based on these claims and allow those looking in on this discussion to see what a strengthened article looks like. I don't concur that the citations meet the bar of significant coverage. User:HopsonRoad 11:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You write: "I don't concur that the citations meet the bar of significant coverage." If you are saying that you think the references currently in the article don't measure up to our inclusion criteria I think you may have a misunderstanding of our deletion policy.
Weakly written articles are kept, when they are on notable topics. We don't delete articles on notable topics because the current version of the articles is weak. Sometimes the current version of the article is weak because some well-meaning person, who didn't know any better, incorporated a bunch of content plagiarized from elsewhere. Sometimes, some well-meaning person incorporated a bunch of original research. Sometimes, some well-meaning person, who doesn't realize they aren't a very good writer, or who didn't realize they don't really understand the topic, introduced "improvements" that left a formerly good article in a bad state. None of these are grounds for deletion.
Similarly, if you think the Lorca Cohen article doesn't have enough references, that is not grounds for deletion. That is grounds for a tag suggesting reference improvement.
If what you are really saying is that you think the Lorca Cohen article should be deleted, becaue you, personally, don't think she is a notable topic. Her notability is not based on whether I, personally, think she is notable. Her notability is not based on whether you, personally, think she is notable. Her notability is based on being written about, for years, in a variety of contexts, by reliable sources.
Queen Elizabeth has a bunch of possible successors. She has seventeen children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. The UK lists these possible successors, in their order of precedence. If you add her neice, nephew, first cousins, and their children, grandchildren and greatgrandchildren, you get to 56 possible successors. Currently the wikipedia has articles on almost all those in the first half, and about half those in the second half. So, being an heir to the UK crown doesn't guarantee notability. If you look at her second cousin, third cousins, and their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, only a few seem to have established enough notability for someone to have written a standalone article about them.
But if someone is notable, in their own right, it doesn't matter if they are related to someone who is more notable than they are. There is no advantage and many disadvantages to forcing a merge of an article on someone who is notable into a much larger article on a relative who is more notable than they are.
I am going to point out that, while something like 67,000 people have read the article on Leonard Cohen, in the last 20 days, compared with only 3,300 for Lorca Cohen, 3,300 is still a lot of page reads. People are going, specifically, to her article, to read about her. How, exactly, is it going to improve the wikipedia if we delete and merge the perfectly adequate article on her, for reasons -- well, I still don't really understand the policy basis of your nomination.
You write: "I suggest that Geo Swan strengthen the WP:LEADPARAGRAPH, based on these claims and allow those looking in on this discussion to see what a strengthened article looks like."
WP:BEFORE lays out the obligations on a nominator to conduct their own web search. Nominators who comply with WP:BEFORE should already have reached an informed opinion on whether the topic of the article measures up to our notability standards, that is independent of the article in question, prior to the nomination.
The passage I quoted seems to say you aren't actually sure whether she is notable, or not. Woah! Woah! Woah! That is so wrong!
Maybe you have done this before, and no one has told you this, but AFD is not intended to be a stick to goad other people into improving articles on notable topics. We have tags for that. We have talk pages, for people to voice their concerns. If you have concerns over articles' notability, in the future, I suggest you use them, not AFD, to get your editorial concerns addressed.
For what it is worth, I think "those looking in" on this, or any other article before AFD, should be basing their conclusion on the innate notability of the topic, not their opinion of the current state of the article. Geo Swan (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My sole concern is whether the subject meets the bar of having received significant coverage for notability. This is a judgment call, since there are no specific standards. I was suggesting that strengthening the lead could be a useful exercise to demonstrate whether the criterion has been met, since it does not currently explain why the subject is notable. In fact, it's difficult to discern an actual lead sentence and paragraph that conforms to the MoS. User:HopsonRoad 14:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The parallel, cited above of Elizabeth II#Issue, is a good example. Inspection of the articles for each of the issue of Elizabeth demonstrates significant coverage of each person. User:HopsonRoad 14:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I essentially started this article, changing a redirect to a full article.
Yes, she is related to a more famous person -- several more famous people in fact. But before starting the article, I assured myself that she had her own notability.
I find nominator's rationale for deletion a kind of a moving target. Sadly, it seems that evolving rationale is not firmly based in policy. As I said above, AFD is not supposed to be a stick to goad contributors to work on articles on topics that do measure up to our notability criteria. People wrote about her. RS wrote about her on an on-going basis. RS wrote about various facets of her life, for a long time. That is enough to establiish notability. The suggestion the article should be deleted, because her life doesn't have huge accomplishments -- if that is part of what nominator meant to say, is not based in policy. Geo Swan (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Geo Swan (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my sole concern is whether the subject meets the bar of having received significant coverage for notability. This is a judgment call, since there are no specific standards. That is why this is an opportunity to achieve a consensus on the matter. User:HopsonRoad 14:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete I am put in mind of Alma Mahler, but Alma inspired great art: [14], whereas with Lorca, none of the sources is primarily about her, she appears only as a player in stories about someone else.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alma Mahler was the subject of significant coverage of which she was the subject. User:HopsonRoad 00:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person has done nothing notable. All the references are either passing mentions or about her association with someone more famous. None of that amounts to in-depth coverage. SpinningSpark 13:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete every mention in the reliable sources listed wouldn't exist if not for her father's notability. And we know notability isn't inherited. Ask yourself this: if Leonard Cohen wasn't her father, and this article was exactly the same (other than that) would this be a notable bio? No chance. LAroboGuy (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Almost every source talks about someone OTHER than her, the fact that the source titles almost all have someone else's name in them is a big red flag. Even when a source talks about her, it's in relation to someone else, she is secondary to the article and usually mentioned only in passing. Notability just isn't inherited. Waggie (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LAroboGuy and Waggie both remind everyone that wiki guidelines say "notability isn't inherited". But are they trying to suggest having a more famous relative bars someone from measuring up to our notability criteria?
LAroboGuy wrote: "every mention in the reliable sources listed wouldn't exist if not for her father's notability"
I have several problems with this. As an experienced contributor you must know that topics are notable. A strongly notable topic should not be deleted due to weaknesses in the current article. It seems to me that those participating in an AFD who only look at the references listed in the article are letting down the project. The opinion they leave, at the AFD is not an informed opinion, reached through their own independent web search. But it should be.
Further, are you saying her childhood friend, Wainwright only agreed to father her child because she had a famous father -- not because they had been very close friends, for decades?
Finally, history, and the wikipedia are full of notable individuals who were associated with individuals more famous than they were.
Should we shoehorn the article on Robin, into the article on Batman? Shoehorn the article on Buzz Aldrin into the article on Neil Armstrong? Geo Swan (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm suggesting at all. Topics are notable, yes, but the topic here is Lorca Cohen, not her child with Rufus Wainwright, not her relationship to her father or brother. Her article can include those topics, certainly, but it must be about her primarily and there just isn't the WP:RS content to support that. Buzz Aldrin has extensive and comprehensive coverage discussing him independently of Neil Armstrong, his own achievements, his engineering background, his other missions to space, etc. A more accurate analogy to what you're driving at is probably Jakob Dylan and his father Bob Dylan, but still Jakob Dylan is clearly notable on his own, having produced six albums with The Wallflowers some with songs on the top charts and having significant comprehensive coverage about himself and his two solo albums, as well. It's clearly possible for someone to be notable themselves outside of their parents or spouses notability. The vast majority of discussion about Lorca Cohen says roughly "Rufus Wainwright is an incredible musician, and here's his history and accomplishments, here's a picture of his husband and this fancy gift he gave him, and Elton John helped him recover from drug addiction! Oh, and he had a daughter with Lorca Cohen who is Leonard Cohen's daughter." Or, "Leonard Cohen's daughter had a daughter with Rufus Wainwright! Here's some history about Leonard Cohen and Rufus Wainwright and that song 'Hallelujah'!" Or, "Adam Cohen gave this great interview about growing up with Leonard Cohen, and Lorca's mentioned too!" That's not comprehensive coverage about Lorca Cohen. Nevermind the fact that the numerous interviews and press releases do not confer notability in any case. In fact, the more I look at these sources, the more I believe my vote was the right one. Waggie (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying having Rufus Wainwright's baby doesn't make her notable. Being Leonard Cohen's daughter doesn't make her notable. She hasn't received any indepth coverage besides those things, so she's not notable. And you don't have to write a book in response to every delete vote as if your life depended on seeing this article survive. LAroboGuy (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to give more time to find sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. As someone said a long way above my comment, she's on the verge of notability, and not purely and only for being the daughter of her father. That said, the references in the article really only mention her in passing, which to my way of reading things suggests that she's just not "across the line" in notability terms. 07:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. As others noted, there is a paucity of sources about her that go into detail. This AfD is a clear-cut case of too soon. Delta13C (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing does not seem to be there to support a stand-alone article at this time, its worth a paragraph in her father's article at most. ValarianB (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (revised User:HopsonRoad 01:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)) As I've stated above, the subject does not meet the standard of significant coverage under Wikipedia:Notability (people). User:HopsonRoad 13:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're the nominator, I think that serves as a de facto vote or call to delete already. ValarianB (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination does count as his !vote and his argument here was stated already. I've striked-out the comment. freshacconci (✉) 14:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought that this was a place to summarize votes, after a re-listing. Also, my comment distilled the basis for my vote, having seen the discussion above. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 15:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to expand on, or clarify, a previous recommendation, the convention here is that you precede your remarks with a bolded "comment". Never precede your remarks with a bolded "keep" or "delete" unless at the same time you strike-through your previous recommendation. SpinningSpark 17:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per WP:NOTINHERITED and under WP:BLP as it contains a lot of spiteful gossip. Looks like an attack page. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Have looked at most of the references, they are either focused on Leonard Cohen or Rufus Wainwright. The mentions of Lorca Cohen were all incidental. Notability requires significant media coverage. If a thousand newspaper articles mention me only as the son or partner of a celebrity, does that volume of coverage by itself make me notable?Rogermx (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BASIC states that, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[7]" Footnote [7] speaks to what's trivial; it says "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail". To answer your question about a thousand mentions, mere mention that you're a relative is trivial, if each said something substantive about you that many mentions would add up to notability. In this case, the mentions are too few to overcome the lack of substantive coverage, even though they are non-trivial. User:HopsonRoad 18:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to support a standalone article. A WP:NOTINHERITED case here. All the sources discuss her in relation to other notable people. --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor quality sources make it non notable. Fails WP:BLP. scope_creep (talk) 17:14, 29 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 GSC Game World. So Why 06:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Grigorovich[edit]

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

Unnotable person, only has one source in Ukranian about an award he won, no BLP sources present. Even the native (Ukranian) article is completely unsourced. Lordtobi (✉) 06:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are only a few notes about Sergey over the English part of the web, but the name of Cossacks and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games founder should be saved for next generations. Moreover, the name of this person in mentioned at GSC Game World page. And there's a logic, that the founder of that company also has a wiki page.--Donets.Aleksey (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, we could keep it as redirect—if required—but the article is mostly unsourced and the subject unnotable, regardless of affilitation with GSC. Lordtobi (✉) 06:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete largely per nom. I'd also add here that there's no issue of the "saving" of things for the next generation. Just because someone doesn't (yet, I'm tempted to say) have a Wikipedia article, they're not necessarily at any risk of a modern-day damnatio memoriae. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG. Poor or no research by nom.[15][16][17][18][19] —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any reliable sources in our language? Especially the last one is from a channel called "gscfancom", definetly tertiary and not usable, and other than that, there are only Ukranian sources. It is not notable enough for English Wikipedia, and the Ukranian article itself is not in a better shape. If you wish, you can incpororate your sources #1-#4 into the Ukranian article first, where very applicable. Lordtobi (✉) 12:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - Wiki rules state that RS do NOT have to be in English: WP:NONENG. People of all languages read and edit English-language Wikipedia so I don't know what you mean by "our" language. If you can't read them, then that is a good indicator you shouldn't have nominated this article for deletion in the first place because you're wasting other people's time. Stick to articles that only have sources in "your" language. PS the last one is on GSCFancom's YouTube channel but it is taken from a Ukrainian TV program ie third-party source. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very true. That being said, I'm guessing most editors here are not familiar with these websites, and are unable to read the content themselves. You may be more persuasive if you can explain why these websites are reliable, and maybe explain some of the points of significant coverage in them? Sergecross73 msg me 19:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For my own sake (and before this turns nasty), I'll say that the non-YouTube sources there look at least worthy of further investigation. The second and third read like interviews with the subject, just based on the format and the wording of the URLs, so can I confirm that's what they are? And what's the first one? There's a word in the title of the piece which I seem to sound out as "Kazakh", so I'm curious and actively reconsidering my opinion above. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 13:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to his company, GSC Game World, which has apparently produced major games. Tehre does not apear to be any separate notability. The Uk article is an over-personal autobio, or perhaps pressrelease. . DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GSC Game World; not independently notable. With the help of Google translate, it appears that the links provided above are interviews -- these are generally not sufficient for establishing notability as these are not independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GSC Game World. The sourcing does not indicate that the subject passes the GNG, and notability is not inherited. The fact that there aren't sources in Ukrainian further suggests that there won't be any turning up in any language. Redirect is a viable alternative to deletion in this case since the company is notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PT Jababeka Tbk[edit]

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

Had made this a candidate for speedy deletion under G11 but tag was immediately removed without explanation by an account created seconds before.[20] Am now nominating for general deletion. Article is a purely promotional piece, as is nearly everything created by this particular editor. KDS4444 (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've removed most of the article. As the nom correctly stated, it was mostly marketing spam and puffery. The remaining sources do not meet the criteria for establishing notability and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this spam please. Does the creator also intend to produce articles on the nn subsidiaries too?

Subsidiaries

PT Jababeka Infrastruktur
PT Gerbang Teknologi Cikarang
PT Bekasi Power
PT Cikarang Inland Port
PT Indokargomas Persada Etc. Etc.

K.e.coffman (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Saga of the Skolian Empire. (non-admin closure) f e minist 13:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Empire[edit]

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

No sources, this is an excessive amount of detail. It isn't one of the major empires in the book series it is from. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep basically because I like it, or merge most of it into Saga of the Skolian Empire, which is a repository for merged article in the series and where the characters from here are already mentioned. Debresser (talk) 05:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge [21] seems a brief mention, [22] (pp. 47-48) is more in depth, but not by much. I don't see any notability of the Ruby Empire separate from Saga of the Skolian Empire, and believe it would be best presented in that article. Jclemens (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Saga of the Skolian Empire considering the lack of coverage on this particular topic that warrants a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 15:41, 24 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 redirect. There's no need to take redirect proposals to AfD. Nick-D (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy[edit]

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

This unsourced stub article is confusing because the essential information is found in Diplomatic mission embassy is another word for this. It was proposed that the article be transformed into a redirect in 2004, since its creation this article has been edited 53 times by 30 users and in the past 20 days seen 99 times a day the other article has been edited 756 times by 474 users and on average over 20 days seen 428 times. There is nothing in this article that does not have its place in the Diplomatic mission article but it is not as complete. We are maintaining 2 articles on the same subject. i propose a redirect. Domdeparis (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect The existing article for Embassy is awful, and Diplomatic mission is a synonym. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (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 delete. Favonian (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'M NOT A TERRORIST[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced advert for an apparently unreleased film, with no indication of notability per WP:NFILM. No significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources, just lots of marketing on social media. Evident WP:Conflict of interest by article creator, who has so far created only articles on films connected with director Mohd. Hafiz Mat Ishak. Prod contested without comment by article creator. Uncle Roy (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - TheMagnificentist 11:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Flow 234 (Nina) talk 23:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nate • (chatter) 23:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NFILM. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lepricavark (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in reliable sources, so this film fails WP:NFILM, per others. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:18, 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 keep. I'm withdrawing the AfD in view of the improvement in the article DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monax[edit]

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

Unwisely accepted from AfC. Written as an advertisement, using importance by association: X Y and Z use this product, os it must be notable. We joined a notable project, so we must be notable, We were mentioned by notable publications, so we must be notable. It was rejected several times; more of the same notability by association was added, and then it was accepted.

We refer promotional editors to AfC, but it does no good if we let them write promotional work there and accept it. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have made some edits to bring the article inline with WP:NPOV. Multiple defects in the submission were cured in two separate rejections of this article during the AfC process over six months, during which additional footnotes were introduced to establish this company's importance in the blockchain space. Therefore I do not see why the AfC process needs to be relitigated here, barely 48 hours after the article was created.

WP:Notability is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This company meets these criteria extensively as shown by dozens of independent third-party references to its work. These references span a period of three years and include a range of first-tier publications; similar articles for e.g. Digital Asset Holdings or R3 (company), which are also notable in the blockchain space, bring far less to the table in terms of references, yet they stand. In Monax's case, one footnote (42) from an objective third-party source literally states that news about something this company did "is notable to blockchain watchers." I am not sure how much clearer one can get than that. Werhuwieyw8 ( talk ) 07:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed a lot of puffery from the article. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:37, 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. Favonian (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radhi Rudy Bin Dadu[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Appears to be a non-notable film with little coverage in reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability per WP:NFILM, with no significant coverage online in WP:RS. Evident WP:Conflict of interest by article creator, who has so far created only articles on films connected with director Mohd. Hafiz Mat Ishak. Uncle Roy (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'M NOT A TERRORIST. Uncle Roy (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM with no coverage in reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:21, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)

Jean Georgescu[edit]

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

Stub and failure of General notability guidelines Arjun3456 (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. The nominator has made only 4 edits till date. This seems a mistaken Afd. A quasi-legend of the Romanian film scene, the subject qualifies on both WP:GNG (for example, this book written on his life won the Critics Film Association Award,[23]; additionally covered by multiple sources like [24] or [25]) and WP:DIRECTOR, as the subject has not only created many well-known works, but the subject's works have also won critical attention and have become monuments. He made the first internationally acclaimed Romanian box-office hit A Stormy Night.See page 11 It's considered the best Romanian film before 1948.[26] The National Film Archives has restored multiple works of the subject, which have had creditable screenings years after the work was made.[27] The National Center of Cinematography building has one entrance named after the subject.[28] Lourdes 16:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Stubbiness is no sort of reason to delete - there are tens of thousands of WP:STUB articles in English Wiki which clearly pass WP:GNG. A quick look at the corresponding Romanian article turned up this and this and this, all of which look like independent citations specifically about Jean Georgescu. Narky Blert (talk) 22:32, 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 (✉) 04:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Prominently featured in this History of Romanian Cinema. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Links identified by editors above show clear notability. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 16:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:GNG. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. I was tempted to close this myself, but I'll leave that to someone else. Lepricavark (talk) 23:55, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE joe decker ^talk 01:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Sigma Records[edit]

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

The article appears to be against Wikipedia's notability guidelines and contains no verifiable sources of information, therefore, should not have a separate article and hence should be deleted. The article also appears to have been wrote by someone who's either an artist or member of the imprint label itself, which also breaches the neutrality of the article, essentially where the only use for the article is that of promotion. Ross MacPhee (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:28, 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 (✉) 04:58, 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. as accepted by the contributor. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC) Okay. Just delete it. It was my first article and I thought it was worth a shot but I guess this rapper isn't quite famous enough yet. My bad just delete it so you can all move on to articles of actual importance. I wasn't trying to do something wrong... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbauer18 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Truett McKeehan (TRU)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician - can find no coverage in RS beyond being a notable person's son. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. I also searched under TruDog but unless he also has side business for doggy dental spray, there's no coverage there either. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I nominated for speedy but it was rejected because "Being signed to a notable label indicates importance/significance", yet he's not signed to any label and the article's creator incorrectly added labels to the infobox (among other issues). I proded, but the article creator ~~(against policy)~~ de-proded and wiped out a template on my talk page and added a comment at the top of the article (showing once again that the creator has no clue) that the subject has worked on a song other than his father's and he wasn't trying to break Wikipedia guidelines. In short, there are not reliable sources to support the subject's notability. Subject currently fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Isn't signed to a label and has not released any works of his own, let alone has any charting works. He has been mentioned on his father's article and until the subject is notable, that's where all discussion should remain. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Slight nitpick: the creator of an article CAN remove PRODs, but not speedy tags. Jclemens (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to TobyMac until and unless independent notability is demonstrated. Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator's rationale. While a redirect seems plausible, we already have four redirects for Truett, including Truett McKeehan, so this combination of various disambiguators is rather unnecessary as a redir. Primefac (talk) 15:13, 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 (✉) 04:58, 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 moved. Dab page moved to Naupactus (disambiguation) and resulting redirect retargeted to Nafpaktos. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 04:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naupactus[edit]

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

This disambiguation page should be redirected instead , per WP:TWODAB to Nafpaktos , which is clearly the primary topic. The hatnote in the article mentioned above should suffice Kostas20142 (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Kostas20142 (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Naupactus (disambiguation). Several contributors in May 2017 have now expanded the DAB page, so I'm now voting to retain the DAB, but agreeing with User:Patar knight (below) that the best place for the DAB is at Naupactus (disambiguation). Redirect - to Nafpaktos, and keep the existing hatnote on the target article mentioning Naupactus (weevil). This is what I understand User:Kostas20142 to be proposing. In this way we avoid the need for a separate disambiguation page, which is what the Naupactus page is serving for currently. Naupactus and Nafpaktos are really the same thing (two different Romanizations of the same Greek word), so 'Naupactus' is not the best place for the DAB. Instead we should move the DAB to Naupactus (disambiguation). We could have Naupactus become a redirect to Nafpaktos. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect. Article has been a redirect to Nafpaktos, which has long had a hatnote pointing to Naupactus (weevil), since September 2015, when the article was moved to there. I don't see any reason to believe that the weevil genus, which article averages two views per day, is anywhere near significant enough to stop the town being the primary topic, and virtually all of the article-space links to Naupactus are intended for the town – in fact, I can't see a single one looking for the weevil (although, admittedly, the fact that this page historically has redirected to the town is probably a significant cause of this). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Naupactus (disambiguation) and add Battle of Naupactus as a third entry, which solves the TWODABs problem. Then redirect to Nafpaktos per above, and update the hatnote. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although moving as Patar knight suggests is fine to do. "TWODABs" should not be used to get rid of dab pages once created, as here we go with additional entries coming up. --do ncr am 23:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Speedily moved to Naupactus (disambiguation), as there was no discussion or consensus to change the original redirect, nor any evidence presented for the absence of a primary topic. bd2412 T 20:12, 25 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. Without prejudice to a redirect to Southampton Common should content be added there. joe decker ^talk 01:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southampton Little Common[edit]

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

Almost no text, should be a redirect rather. Xx236 (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Southampton Common - ie add some mention of this area, which isn't currently mentioned, if a source can be found. Otherwise delete PamD 13:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - I could find no reference to this part of Southampton Common apart from a blog about an apple-picking picnic. Does not meet WP:GNG in its own right, but could be merged into the other article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment I can find a bunch of references to the term but nothing that passes our reliable sources guidline. I expect something with surface at some point thanks to the efforts of the Southampton Common Forum but for now its going to be hard to add anything to the Southampton Common article.©Geni (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not significant enough in my view. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:16, 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. clpo13_(talk) 22:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frederik Weber[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG as well as WP:SPORTBIO Siuenti (씨유엔티) 02:23, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete; fails GNG, no hints for fencing at Wikipedia:Notability (sports), but in analogy to other sports, Junior World Cup medalist is not enough to confer notability. Lectonar (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: let's get rid of this please, since we can't move it to draft we seem to be kinda stuck Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:09, 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. clpo13_(talk) 22:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Crash[edit]

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

Source searches, including customized searches, are not providing any significant coverage to qualify a standalone article. Only finding passing mentions such as this and this. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Unfortunately, sources that cover the subject in-depth do not seem to exist. She is known in the fetish/performance world but the coverage is generally in the context of a larger story, such as Dave Navarro] being suspended, and the like. ValarianB (talk) 12:21, 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 (✉) 04:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't need in-depth coverage, given that it's a niche subject. kencf0618 (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A novel defense, to be sure. There are these side notability guides in the project, the closest fit for this person would seem to be WP:ENTERTAINER. Can you say how the subject meets that guide, if that is the one you intend to offer as an alternate to WP:N ? ValarianB (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being a niche subject in no way removes the need to meet WP:GNG and this page plainly fails to meet this guideline. Just Chilling (talk) 13:23, 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 per WP:CSD#G5. The article was created by Beatley (talk · contribs), who is a confirmed sock puppet of Slowking4 (talk · contribs), in violation of the block placed on Slowking4, with no substantial edits by others. Mz7 (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dalina Bocour[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG; created by now blocked user who was evading their topic ban. Ymblanter (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:21, 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 (✉) 04:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I agree, though under the "anyone who ever touched the ball" standard of NSPORTS, it's a gray area. Montanabw^(talk) 05:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Now eligible for speedy: [29]--Ymblanter (talk) 17:59, 24 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. clpo13_(talk) 22:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tilak chari[edit]

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

article fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 06:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 06:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:19, 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 (✉) 04:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability in either the article or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:49, 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 delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Nauman[edit]

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

fails WP:NACTOR and WP:NCREATIVE most of the sources are simple passing mentions or simple bios that seem to be mostly self-published. Domdeparis (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: helped resolve the WP:NACTOR and WP:NCREATIVE dispute by finding WP:RS and removing apparent WP:RSSELF. Notability can also be verified through imdb and Google. JuggrnautTN (talk) 4 May 2017 (UTC)— JuggrnautTN (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Imdb is not a reliable source for notability but a list of credits that anyone can edit and there is almost no control and a google search is not a source for notability. Please read WP:GNG to understand more. Domdeparis (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The page has been updated with additional WP:NEWSORG articles and other significant coverage sources supporting WP:ENT for involvement in acting and puppetry. Disputed citation removed per WP:CITEIMDB.JuggrnautTN (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)— JuggrnautTN (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

comment you have added a certain number of sources to a local newspapers that seem to be erroneous when you click on the link the search result comes up with "no documents found". A deadlink should not be added from the outset. Otherwise none of the other sources are in-depth coverage of the subject but at best passing mentions. Domdeparis (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* I appreciate the advice. It will help with edits. I added the links because it contains the article ID# in its description. By searching http://nl.newsbank.com (which I noticed is often used on Wikipedia) others can read an excerpt of the archived article which means readers can WP:VERIFY the source. Projects associated with this topic can be verified through their respective links and sources. As an new editor, I'm attempting contribute to the niche category of puppetry. WP:SPATG. It's challenging to find strong secondary sources because the performers aren't typically interviewed. Most shouldn't meet WP:GNG, however in this case, the topic was covered in multiple verifiable citations. Perhaps this is an indication of WP:NOTLEVEL because of the mystique maintained by their profession? Not sure. Most Puppeteer pages I visited were flagged in one capacity or another. That's why I relied on NewsLibrary to satisfy the sources dispute. Perhaps the wiki community can advise me on how to contribute pages for puppeteers with the current challenge presented: meeting notability and citation standards set by WP:ENT. JuggrnautTN (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have just gone through the sources that you added and I don't know if was intentional but you modified the amount of the scholarship (twice) it was 500$ and not 5000$. It was not a graduation scholarship but a talent search open to all high school students; Also the "nomination" for a prize in the lede is an awards ceremony that anyone can enter so long as you pay the 50€ fee or 31€ if you get in early...link. I modified the article to reflect the information in the sources. As you so rightly said it is difficult because there are no strong secondary sources and you have hit the nail on the head as to why I nominated this page. Wikipedia contains articles about notable subjects and have to meet the GNG. Domdeparis (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting my error with the amounts! What's currently on the page isn't an exhaustive list of his work. I only included credits I could link to secondary sources that included mention of him. A few verifiable citations appear in videos and not written in text, unfortunately. Perhaps a more experienced and resourceful editor could add to the page. I still believe it fulfills the minimum per WP:ENT. JuggrnautTN (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. But 3 shorts, a bit part in 1 NCIS episode, an unnamed part in a film, an uncredited role in a comedy sketch show, a character in a web series that has had an average of 10k views per episode and some credits as a puppeteer but with no in-depth coverage of his work whatsoever I am afraid I don't think he comes anywhere near to meeting WP:ENT. Domdeparis (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we will have to agree to disagree. In defense of the article, the "10k views per episode" you mentioned was drawn from [YouTube] and not the other subscriptions services^[1]^[2]^[3] referenced where viewership data isn't available. The topic's inclusion in a national touring show^[4] since 2010 and exposure as a corporate mascot^[5] were also referenced on the page. JuggrnautTN (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC) *Note: Additional WP:RS found under "Henry Nauman" and added to page. JuggrnautTN (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source that you added as a WP:RS for Henry Nauman is not independent as it is at the bottom of an article he wrote for a Historical Society. Are you scanning everything that you have on him? Domdeparis (talk) 16:55, 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 (✉) 11:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Doesn't meet exact requirements on WP:ENT, but is close enough I feel it deserves the benefit of the doubt for now. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
would you mind being more precise? Which of the criteria does he come close to meeting and which are the sources that provide in depth secondary cover? Domdeparis (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Power~enwiki: there seems to be a general lack of interest for this discussion and as you are the only !voter excepting the article creator would you mind replying to my question above as I think your !vote needs clarifying? Domdeparis (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a person active in the entertainment industry with at least two independent sources, so I was inclined to keep the article. Looking deeper, I can't make any additional case to keep the article, and wouldn't object to a deletion. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Twenties: Season 1", Amazon.com, retrieved 9 May 2017
^ "Twenties: the Series". Dekkoo.com. Retrieved 9 May 2017. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ "Twenties on Sparkktv". Sparkktv. Retrieved 9 May 2017.
^ "Jane Henson's Nativity Story". Retrieved 3 May 2017.
^ "GoTrusted introduces Mr. TMI". GoTrusted. 23 March 2011. Retrieved 9 May 2017.

Delete -- being on a nn web series and appearing "as the character Cameron Mann in one episode of the 14th season of NCIS" is not exactly a claim to notability. Clearly fails WP:NACTOR with correspondingly weak sources.

Appears to have spawned a walled garden, including What Is This Night! and Some Like It Bot!. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant roles: one non-notable web series, and one episode of a serial. In neither case is it possible to determine whether the role was major. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Meets neither WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:57, 29 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 Baling District. clpo13_(talk) 22:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ppd Baling Sik[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. No reliable or significant coverage. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 05:07, 27 April 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 April 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 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 (✉) 11:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no significance importance of the office. QianCheng_虔诚 06:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Baling District. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 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 (✉) 04:55, 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 restore the redirect. Given the extensive history of edit-warring, I will be protecting the redirect to enforce the close decision. Nyttend (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Theft Auto: Vice City soundtrack[edit]

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

No indication of independent notability. A single non-RS source. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose this deletion. Vice city soundtrack is one of the most iconic video game soundtracks of all time^[1]^[2], and in many cases have introduced entire communities to genres of music they might not have otherwise listened to^[3]. Sushovande (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onel, I see you've recommended the soundtrack article for GTA Vice City to be deleted. Why havent you also recommended the soundtrack articles for GTA3, GTA4, and GTA5 be deleted as well.?

I'm confused why its "okay" for those three articles to remain, but the Vice City article has to redirect to the commercially-released discs that don't contain the full soundtrack ingame... Damian001 (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.gamespot.com/forums/games-discussion-1000000/vice-city-hands-down-has-the-best-soundtrack-out-o-27530615/
^ http://thebests.kotaku.com/the-best-licensed-video-game-soundtrack-of-all-time-1685069296
^ http://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/seven-songs-you-only-know-and-love-if-you-played-grand-theft-auto-vice-city-7558

Every soundtrack, as any article, is discussed on its own merits. Also we typically discuss one case before deciding whether a principle applies to a whole group. The question is what reliable sources you're using to justify keeping this article separate from the main game's article. It was originally redirected for a lack of references, nevertheless from reliable sources. The soundtrack article is also full of original research—like Izno said on my talk page, it's exactly the sort of unencyclopedic information we don't host, though it'd be fine to export the content to a fandom wiki (such as Wikia) if you want to preserve the unverified information. But when a topic lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?), we then lack the means to write an encyclopedic treatment of the topic, hence why the article is redirected or deleted. czar 13:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what Czar says, which is correct, I'll also add that its pretty common for there to be an initial deletion discussion to be held on one example of a type of article, and then further action taken based on the result of the initial discussion. For example, lets say there is a strong consensus here to delete the Vice City soundtrack article. Then its likely that the GTA 3 soundtrack is nominated for deletion next, if it looks to be a comparable situation. On the other hand, if someone points out how there are actually a lot of websites that cover this sort of thing, then they may be less likely to nominated GTA 3, and whole thing may be dropped. But its not abnormal (or wrong) to just "start with one". People can pick and chose whatever they want to nominate, as long as its in good faith. Sergecross73 msg me 20:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources on Google (Granted not all are great however notability is there)- As the game was released in 2002 I'd imagine most sources would be offline. –Davey2010^Talk 20:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010 - Can you point out a few specifics? I'm neutral right now, but I'm seeing a lot of false positives in that first page of listings. I really don't think the article The Notorious B.I.G. & 9/11: Radio Censorship, Illuminati Conspiracy Theories and Everything In Between is going to be significant coverage on this subject, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 21:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I assumed this was the CD however I've just found out we already have a CD article (Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Official Soundtrack Box Set) so in the end I've just wasted an hour of my life scrapping the barrel for sources!, I'm a great lover of Vice City however even I agree this shouldn't be an article, Merge the radio descriptions into Vice City as they're relevent but the rest can go. –Davey2010^Talk 21:46, 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 (✉) 04:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect (Grand_Theft_Auto:_Vice_City#Soundtrack), per my longer comment above czar 07:53, 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. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 09:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shamily Sukumar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR: I see no evidence that any of her roles are "significant", and so far, no reliable sources have been found that discuss her life and career at any length. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep role on Ponnunjal (TV series) recurring according to its own article. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: Do you have a reliable source to support your claim? I can't find a single source that talk about her character in Ponnunjal (TV series) even if she did appear as this character, the character is so minor as to be effectively not worth mentioning. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no ability to do so, and believe only a Tamil speaker can do so. I would support a WP:JUNK deletion based on the fact that she doesn't have a page on the Tamil-language wikipedia. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Most of her TV roles are minor ones and her film roles often go uncredited. The one in Pencil is a minor one too. Fails WP:NACTOR. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if sourcing exists to validate Power-Enwiki's claim, that still would not raise it to the level of meeting WP:NACTOR. Clearly does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:54, 29 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. Uncontested. Sandstein 13:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological Station of Lampedusa[edit]

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

The page should be deleted since after checking the citations provided, the citation does not match on the article since the climate data on the citation only provides historical data for a couple of days, not back to 1670 as the article claims. The citation neither has info related to humidity, sunshine data, and temperature records, which means the entire article is unsourced with made up/fake data. After extensive checking and searching for available meteorological data in both English and Italian, I could not find any reliable sources related to sunshine data, record temperatures or humidity meaning the entire article is unsourced with made up data. This fulfills the criteria in WP:DEL6 and WP:DEL7. The page was created by a user who has been globally blocked, suggesting that the user is likely a sockpuppet of another user with similar editing patterns, fulfilling the speedy deletion criteria WP:G5. Ssbbplayer (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed it appears likely that most of the data are fabricated. However there is a related article in Italian WP, reporting data from 1960, which appears more credible. This site provides data from 1973 onwards. The topic itself is quite encyclopedic. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added an interlink to the italian article. It looks totally different fron the english version, with data starting from 1960. Maybe this page could be re-written translating the Italian version, which seems not so bad sourced and quite reliable.--Pampuco (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:33, 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 (✉) 04:54, 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 redirect to Bornem Abbey#Abbots. The keep !votes failed to convince that there is indeed more than some mentions of this person. On the other hand, only a single person (other than the nom) !voted for outright deletion, with the rest agreeing that a redirect is the better solution. Regards So Why 06:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Schoen[edit]

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

I couldn't find evidence of the required notability for this abbot. Neither searching for "Thomas Schoen" abt Bornem nor "Thomas Schoen" abbot Bornem gave me any significant reliable sources about him, just passing mentions like the one in the source given in the article. Fram (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:38, 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 (✉) 04:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete my searches fail to located sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Redirect to the abbey sounds fine here. He appears to have been a mitred abbot, which means that there are probably sources for him somewhere. The only problem being that we can't find them. Since it is a biography, I'm not comfortable keeping it without better sourcing found that can attest to the facts of his life, but this should be able to be recreated if someone can find sources (including offline ones). Edit: if that sourcing can be found, this history might be useful for recreation. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At worst, Merge/redirect to his abbey, which has a list of some of the abbots. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. on at the least redirect. Heads of such major organizations are presumed notable, which means they are treated as notable unless it can be actually shown there are no sources to prove it. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG:: what "major organization"? It's an abbey, many abbeys are and were really small or medium-sized affairs, not "major organisations". Heads of such "major organisations" are not "presumed notable", no idea where you get this. "they are treated as notable unless it can be actually shown there are no sources to prove it." is utter nonsense which I didn't expect from an admin. I can't prove a negative, and this is "never" requested at AfD. If you want to keep it, you have to show that he is personally notable based on sources, not on some imaginary rule for a "major" arganisation, which this isn't. Fram (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - DGG is right that being an abbot means that there will typically be enough sourcing to demonstrate notability and that this should be considered under WP:NPOSSIBLE. At the same time while he is dead and so doesn't have BLP protections, I'm not comfortable ignoring WP:V on any biographical article. Redirecting serves the purpose of balancing these two positions because it keeps the history. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, DGG is wrong. Many abbots are largely forgotten figures. Abbeys exist in all sizes and importances. Perhaps this one was important, but many abbots are hardly known at all. NPOSSIBLE is all fine and well, but not a reason to keep an article if no indication at all is given of said sources. Fram (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on balance of things; being a subject of a portrait adds to the presumed notability IMO. Also, the prior abbot of the Bornem Abbey has an article. I suspect sources exist, most likely offline. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "being a subject of a portrait adds to the presumed notability IMO." No, not at all, anyone can have a portrait painted for himself or for the head of the organisation. . And his predecessor has an article because "He became the 74th Abbot-General of the Cistercian Order." which is a much stronger claim to notability. Fram (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might well apply if it were a famous painter, but Jean Baptiste Anthony is not. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Baptiste Anthony, a minor artist in the low countries with a historicizing style popular around the fin de siecle, probably could support an article. Searches found his work mentioned in books in French and Dutch. his paintings [30] sell at auction.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting and, ran more searches searches, but I'm just not finding sources so, delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bornem Abbey. Having your picture painted doesn't make you notable, but having substantial independent sources written about you does. I don't see that these exist for Schoen, but some of this content may be useful in an expanded article on the abbey itself. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:08, 31 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. clpo13_(talk) 22:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Clark (music producer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. A search for reliable secondary sources yielded interviews and one-liners, although this had some meat. Note that Draft:Keith Clizark was rejected by User:Abdullah Alam, and Draft:Keith "Clizark" Clark was rejected by User:Garchy. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the original attempts and clearly they weren't drafted well, but when I saw this one, I did a little digging and found that the producer known as Keith Clark aka Keith Clizark was indeed well connected. That's if you count his production credit history. I do agree with User:Magnolia677 about the interviews and such, however, even with the article found on emusician.com, will it be enough? DLabS3 (talk) 04:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sources are interviews; wholly unremarkable & WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 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) 05:55, 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 (✉) 04:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my mind, the dance single with Capitol is the main claim to notability. I found his name associated with it as co-producer, but I cannot find the single listed on the Billboard Dance Charts for 1991. So I go for delete. http://www.billboard.com/archive/charts/1991/dance-club-play-songs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogermx (talk • contribs) 15:52, 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 merge to List of Charmed characters. (non-admin closure) f e minist 13:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Morris[edit]

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

Even though this character was a primary/featured character on a major show, I could not locate enough information to support that he has received significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources. Fails WP:FICT, WP:NOTE, and WP:RS. Limited evidence of independent notability and all references to this appear to be limited to plot summary. Aoba47 (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep or Merge to List of Charmed characters where he already has an entry. There's plenty of RS mentions, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of commentary, so I'm ambivalent. Absolutely does not need to be deleted, per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment. Aoba47 (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 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 03:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. No section on reception/impact, no apparent real world significance, pure plot summary. Merge per above is fine too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:53, 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 redirect and merge to The Mutton Birds. (non-admin closure) f e minist 13:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Manchester (The Mutton Birds album)[edit]

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

Non-charting album that does not receive even the most basic amount of reliable coverage. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge should be merged into the Mutton Birds article NealeFamily (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 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 (✉) 04:53, 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) 22:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Charters-Reid[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as yet unelected candidate in a future election. As always, this does not get a person into Wikipedia in and of itself -- if you cannot show and properly source that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the election. But nothing here shows preexisting notability for anything -- and the sourcing is the usual mix of primary sources and WP:ROUTINE local campaign coverage. Bearcat (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nomination. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:03, 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 (✉) 04:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:26, 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 no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mathomat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathomat, which merged the article to Geometry template. No indication that this is now notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable and no evidence of such. Ajf773 (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article creator has added references to the page, apparently in response to the nomination for deletion. SpinningSpark 13:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With references now added, and there is a some more out there. (It is certainly widely sold too.) Note that the previous AfD was not a delete content but keep, ie merge, content. (Do we know that happened to Geometry Template? I could not find its AfD?) Aoziwe (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It was deleted under the prod process, here is the log entry. As a prod deletion, it can be automatically restored on request. SpinningSpark 15:33, 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 02:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Robert McClenon, SpinningSpark, Aoziwe, Ajf773: A little unusual to run a possible close by the participants, but the situation here is a little unusual. What does everyone think about a keep (for the moment at least) and two-part history merge? A bit of background: the article was first created in December 2004 at this brand name, "Mathomat" title, and merged into and then redirected to the more general type of object, at the title, Geometry template on March 8, 2007. However, what's odd is that you might think, then, that the Geometry template title preexisted the merge but it didn't. Rather, Geometry template was created for the merge (instead of Mathomat simply being moved there, which would have left a smooth page history). Complicating matters, there was improper copyright attribution upon the merge, so their non-overlapping, contiguous page histories belong together. Then, Geometry template was deleted upon a prod in 2013 (which means its page history fits entirely in between the other two; a history merge would not result in any shuffling of parallel editing histories). Meanwhile, Aoziwe above, who has added some sources as noted, has additionally requested undeletion of the prior history of this page and of geometry template at WP:REFUND (which is how I ended up here), so that the best of all can be worked with, but I am reluctant to do that as it leaves behind a bit of a potential attribution mess. With a history merge and a move to the more general object title from the brand name (leaving a redirect in place of course), it seems to me we smooth out attendant copyright issues and give this a good chance, with revisiting the issue always an option.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current article is explicitly about the Mathomat, so if the page is kept, it should remain at the Mathomat title. I have no objection to the undeletion of geometry template. Merging is a separate question, and should probably be handled separately outside AFD. Whether or not I am in favour of such a merge depends on whether sources are available that are not explicitly about the Mathomat. The last version of the deleted article geometry template has no sources at all and if that remains the case I am opposed to merging. SpinningSpark 20:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fuhghettaboutit - Okay. As you say, it's a weird complicated situation. Whatever. I think I'm a deletionist, but I'm not a hard-core deletionist, and this seems like the least absurd situation. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All. I am not too fussed about the process from here on as long as it meets our various responsibilities, attribution, verifiability, etc. It seems to me there is notable content here worth saving if it can be done properly, and I am offering to do it. So whatever is done can it maximise my access to relevant material please, hence my request at WP:REFUND. (I did not add the references to Mathomat, the current creator, User:John P Lawton, did. No matter at all though. I just sectionalised / wikified the article a bit.). Thanks User:Fuhghettaboutit. Please tidy up the histories, etc. as required. If there are any references in any of the deleted material can you copy these to User:Aoziwe/sandbox/Mathomat and I will generate my own content if and as appropriate. Aoziwe (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the last version of geometry template has no references. The only one it ever had was http://eaieducation.com:80/geometry-templates.html which is now a deadlink. However, that was only a sales listing, so not a very useful RS. Here is a Wayback Machine capture of the page. Fuhghettaboutit, in any case I see no reason not to honour the REFUND request right away, and it will aid participants in this discussion who do not have administrator rights. SpinningSpark 10:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Spinningspark. Aoziwe (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete even with added sources the sources are narrow in the mathematical education field. LibStar (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as Geometry Template, adding information about the many others. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 27 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 Mojo Hand per CSD G7 (one author who has requested deletion or blanked the page). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Cooper[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a political figure, notable only as an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself -- if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that she was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of her candidacy, then she does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until she wins the election. But the only other notability claim here is that she served on a local authority council, which doesn't cut it under WP:NPOL either. No prejudice against recreation on or after June 8 if she wins the seat, but nothing here gets her an article today. Bearcat (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I feel that being a member of an elected local council should constitute notability for candidates in the current UK parliamentary election, and that an improved policy for notability of sub-national English politicians must be developed after the election is over. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out in the previous discussion, however, the United Kingdom as a whole is the "national" level for the purposes of NPOL — Westminster is the national body, the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies are the subnational level, and Westminster's failure to follow through on the past proposals for a separate English assembly does not reify the local authorities into a higher level of government than they actually represent in reality. For officeholders at the county level, it's WP:GNG or bust, with no inclusion freebies for them just because there's no English parliament between them and Westminster. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The community consensus on WP:POLITICIAN has not been to extend the term of sub-national office to include local borough councils or similar municipal or county offices (The text of the policy is very explicit, stating "(statewide/provincewide) office" and "members of a national, state or provincial legislature"). Subjects who do not meet WP:POLITICIAN may be notable, but are not provided the assumption of notability just for the office they hold. The standard is WP:GNG and the existing sourcing does not appear to show notability. (Note - the existing community consensus is that campaign coverage is WP:ROUTINE and the specific race for United Kingdom general election, 2017 is notable [as is St Albans (UK Parliament constituency)] where information about the campaign could be located) --Enos733 (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St Albans (UK Parliament constituency)#Elections_in_the_2000s, I've revised the structure of the page. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:00, 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 (✉) 04:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Power~enwiki. Montanabw^(talk) 05:29, 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 merge to Texas All-Star Wrestling. clpo13_(talk) 22:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TASW Tag Team Championship[edit]

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

Non-notable belt, relies on primary sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable belt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.190.4 (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - into Texas All-Star Wrestling. The title reigns can be listed on the main page for the promotion like Global Force Wrestling. Nikki♥311 22:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Not independently notable.LM2000 (talk) 07:32, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Stafford[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted at AfD. Still fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There have been repeated edits by IP editors to the article on Cardiff Central (UK Parliament constituency) claiming that Gregory Stafford is the Conservative candidate for that seat.

15:14, 10 May 2017‎ 165.225.80.252
16:36, 10 May 2017‎ 213.152.162.10
09:47, 11 May 2017‎ 213.210.2.234
15:52, 11 May 2017‎ 80.7.141.152

-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently the IP editors were well informed. Reliable sources now show that he is the Conservative candidate for that seat.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in an election — if you cannot show and properly source that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the seat, not just run for it, to get a Wikipedia article on the basis of the election itself. But there's no evidence of preexisting notability here, because serving on a borough council isn't an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL either. For both local borough councillors and as yet unelected parliamentary candidates, the path to a valid notability claim lies in being able to reliably source them as significantly more notable than the norm for that role, not in simply being able to verify that they exist. No prejudice against recreation on or after June 8 if he wins, but nothing here gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject's role as opposition leader seems to have generated adequate biographical coverage for our purposes and so this passes WP:BASIC. Andrew D. (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just say that media coverage exists to confer a WP:GNG pass — you have to show the evidence that enough media coverage exists to get him over GNG, ideally by actually adding it to the article but at the very least by showing actual hard results of a search in this discussion. Anybody can simply claim that coverage exists about anything — so it's not enough to just say that if you're not showing proof. Bearcat (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for deletion within a few hours of its creation and, as a new creation by an inexperienced editor, it's obviously a weak stub. In considering the merits of the topic, experienced editors like us are expected to go beyond what's in the stub, reviewing available sources using the search links provided above. I have done this and am satisfied that the sources out there mean that the topic passes WP:BASIC. I have cited that guideline, as suggested by the edit notice ("valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements"). Per WP:CHOICE and WP:NOTCLEANUP, there is no requirement for me to do the work of actually writing the article. I might still go on to improve or rewrite the article per our editing policy but first we should dismiss this deletion proposal which naturally has a chilling effect on such work. Per WP:BITE, "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility". Andrew D. (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that you were required to fix the article yourself — while certainly that's the preferred way to resolve any concerns about whether a topic actually clears GNG or not, it's not the only possible way. But a topic absolutely does not clear GNG just because you assert that a GNG-satisfying volume of sourcing exists — again, anybody can simply claim that about anything whether quality sourcing actually exists or not — but you do have to at least show the actual results of a search in this discussion: such as some actual URLs of actual examples of quality sources, actual numbers of hits in news databases, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the case here has to be made by those wanting action, who are expected to search for sources and alternatives to deletion per our deletion policy. Andrew D. (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cardiff Central (UK Parliament constituency), the consensus is that simply being on a local council in England does not establish notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the rival party leader, Julian Bell, has an article. This demonstrates that there's no such consensus and we should rely upon WP:GNG, in our general way. Andrew D. (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nothing stops anybody from trying to create an article about anything they want to, so plenty of Wikipedia articles exist that rightly should not. The existence of that article does not prove that a consensus exists to keep such articles — all that proves is that until you pointed it out just now, none of Wikipedia's responsible editors had noticed it in order to give it a proper evaluation for whether it met our inclusion standards or not. So it's entirely possible that the article on Julian Bell should be deleted, rather than constituting evidence that the article on Gregory Stafford needs to be kept just because Bell has one. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent" and so it supports my position. Julian Bell is not an isolated example; he is in the category Local political office-holders in England which is an extended hierarchy which well demonstrates that such content is acceptable and accepted. Andrew D. (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that we don't accept articles about people whose only claim of notability is as a local councillor. There are a fair number of people who served as local councillors and then went on to also achieve higher, more includable notablity claims — for example, four of the five people in Category:Councillors in the London Borough of Hounslow went on to serve as MPs at Westminster, and the other has been head of an important national organization. All five have articles on the latter grounds, not because borough council per se — the borough council is just an additional detail about a person who has an article because other reasons. But nobody gets a Wikipedia article because borough council per se, if they haven't also attained something significantly more notable than borough council alone — except perhaps in the rare occasion that they can be especially well sourced as a lot more notable than the norm for that level of significance. Bearcat (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only coverage is in local news such as[31] which is really about local issues not Stafford as a person/political figure: he is a run-of-the-mill local politician, and per WP:NPOL he is not notable, having neither a sufficiently important politician nor significant, non-routine press coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NPOL. Local coverage as a local councillor. LibStar (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for politicians. Fails WP:NPOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogermx (talk • contribs) 16:01, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 13:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muqabla (1979 film)[edit]

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

niot notable, no sources -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources provided. Don't delete Muqabla 1979 film.Ajeebtha (talk) 16:49, 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 02:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's odd to find a single long article about a 1979 film (ref #1 in the article) published in February 2017. Films of that age will often have book coverage by now. So far I haven't found any. The 2nd reference is about a song with a note that it's from this film, so that's of little help for notability. Gab4gab (talk) 20:49, 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) 04:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current sources don't have enough coverage by independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:NFILM. Searching found nothing helpful. Gab4gab (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 06:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evi Martyn[edit]

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

I've asked at both the Music and Classical Music project talk pages but no-one is stepping forward. There is a distinct aura of this person failing to satisfy WP:GNG. The few sources I have found, in addition to those stated, are passing mentions in adverts for performances etc. The proviso may be significant: I do not have access to many US newspaper sources. Sitush (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I found http://www.presstelegram.com/general-news/20070820/lifes-work-honored, three paragraphs in http://www.nytimes.com/1983/01/30/arts/music-debuts-in-review-197184.html, which is also listed in the article, and a brief mention at http://articles.latimes.com/1987-09-09/news/vw-4493_1_piano-dealer. She's certainly not Vladimir Horowitz, Alfred Brendel or a more well known pianist, but there's just enough there to satisfy. If the claim that she was was induced into the Hall of Fame of the American College of Musicians in 1989, then it would be clear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:26, 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 02:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do not seem to have an article for the American College of Musicians, which is surprising if they are an award-giving body of note(sic). Thus, any award from them probably doesn't mean much. As I said in my nomination, the mentions in sources appear to be passing remarks at best and that is illustrated by your links. Such stuff doesn't confer notability and your first (the Press Telegram) is an obvious press release and is referring to mentions in versions of Marquis's Who's Who that, I think, are paid entries. At least, that what the folks at WP:RSN have said and it is why they are not considered to be reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, for the Who's Who stuff, see for example Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_56#Who.27s_Who_not_RS.3F. It's a vanity thing and it looks like the selection bar may be low. - Sitush (talk) 07:34, 11 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) 04:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to the above, please also note that the main contributor to the article is Hybridmorphos, who has edited literally nothing but this thing in all their time here, and have done so as recently as last week. It really does look like a small attempt at promotion. - Sitush (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did some searching, and can't find any WP:RS. There's some perfunctory listings of performances, a few You Tube videos, an Amaazon.com listing of a book she wrote, things of that nature. None of these show that she meets WP:N. And, yeah, that fact that the primary author of the article is a WP:SPA doesn't help. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention, I did look at the sources found by Walter Görlitz (thank you for doing the research). The NYTimes article does indeed have three paragraphs about her, but buried at the end of a longer article giving routine coverage to a number of musicians making debuts. The Press-Telegram News is a short piece giving little depth, in a minor regional publication. The LA Times article is not about Martyn; it's about a particular piano that Martyn happens to have played and gave a short quote about. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequate sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not show that they pass notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:51, 29 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 History of the Jews in Moldova. (non-admin closure) f e minist 13:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Community of the Republic of Moldova[edit]

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

The sourcing on this is pretty bad, and falls into four categories:

Articles on ru.wiki: [32], [33], [34]
The organization's own website: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]
Links to various governmental and non-governmental organizations: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]
News articles that don't actually mention the organization: [54], [55], [56], [57]

What's conspicuously absent in all this is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as mandated by WP:GNG. Perhaps this deserves a brief mention at History of the Jews in Moldova, but there's really no indication of standalone notability.

As an aside, note the frequent mentions of Alexandr Bilinkis (a vanity page). That's not a coincidence: these two articles are the sole contributions of JewishMoldova. One article promoting Bilinkis is probably enough. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of the Jews in Moldova. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:59, 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 02:37, 11 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) 04:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of the Jews in Moldova —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 14:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aïda Touré[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable poet, painter, composer; Google search turns up scant results; no valid reflinks. Quis separabit? 15:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep her art has been featured in US embassies[58]. Let's consult with French language Wikipedians who are more like to find coverage of her.--TM 16:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 11 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) 04:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. Note that the keep !vote does not provide a rationale for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniyal Waseem[edit]

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

doesn't pass WP:GNG. cited sources are not reliable. Saqib (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Power~enwiki (talk) 22:57, 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 02:36, 11 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) 04:29, 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. Note that the keep !vote does not provide a rationale for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waseem Ahmed (journalist)[edit]

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

doesn't pass WP:GNG. cited sources are not reliable. Saqib (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Power~enwiki (talk) 22:57, 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 02:34, 11 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) 04:28, 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 redirect to Heald Green (Stockport electoral ward). A valid search term, so redirection is functional per WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heald Green Ratepayers[edit]

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

Small local political grouping, existing in only one electoral ward, with no references or indication of notability provided. No significant coverage in local media - there are only mentions along the lines of "Local councillor X speaking on the issue...". QueenCake (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Heald Green (Stockport electoral ward) which contains exactly the same info. Local councillors are seldom notable, and nor are groupings at this level. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:52, 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 02:33, 11 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) 04:28, 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 14:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lew Blum[edit]

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

The subject of this article appears to be of local interest only, and therefore fails WP:GNG. WP:N states that topics should be of interest to "the world at large", and while there is plenty of coverage in Philadelphia about Mr. Blum, I have found no coverage from outside the city to indicate that he has a wider notability, not even a single profile from someplace like Vice that writes about unusual people as a matter of course. The page has been tagged for notability since 2010, so there has been plenty of opportunity to locate and add sources, but it appears that none exist. I am happy to withdraw this early if proven incorrect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:10, 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 02:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Philadelphia is a large market - 6 million in the metro area - the size of a small country. Being the "most hated man in X" (as many news items claim) - makes one notable. And it isn't that this notoriety is new - it is longstanding. e.g. - [59]. And there might be non-Philadelphia coverage - hard to ascertain without going through all the local "horror" stories.Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 15 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) 04:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this whole article is a disaster, and it's on a living person. "Most hated man in X" is likely puffery. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Most hated" - probably puffery. However it is quite clear that this living person (or rather the towing company under his name) is aiming to be notorious - it is part of the business model (and gives weight to signs stating a piece of property is parking enforced by Blum, and increases the willingness of towees to cough up cash) - and the sheer amount of "towing horror stories" in a simple source check on "Lew Blum" is quite astounding.Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but those are basically all local press complaining about him to the point that it's basically routine. Slow news day? Profile Mr. Blum. Still a jerk? Yup, great, there's your story. There's just nothing that isn't...that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concede it is Philadelphia press (or at least the vast majority of it is - hard to find non-Philli coverage in between the vast multitude of Philli items). However it seems like it is all of the Philadelphia press and for the past 20+ years. Being a highly repeated canned news item (to be precise - multiple different cans) to run on a slow news day, shows notability (or notoriety). We're not talking about some backwards town with a small amount of residents, this is a significant locale.Icewhiz (talk) 10:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:ROUTINE - any particular "Blum incident" would indeed be routine - just as a particular marriage or sports match would be. However the existence of the phenomena as a whole (e.g. marriage as opposed to a particular marriage announcement) - is not routine.Icewhiz (talk) 10:04, 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 convert to draft. The consensus is that because only one film has been released so far, it is too early to have an article about a series for the film. A few editors pointed out that Dracula Untold (2014) was originally intended to be the first film in the series; however, since those plans were discarded, most editors agreed that it does not represent the first film in this series.

On the other hand, since it is likely that the subject will warrant coverage in Wikipedia in the future, there is also a consensus to avoid deleting the article and instead convert it into a draft so that it can continue to be maintained and moved back to mainspace when and if additional information about future installments is released. Content from the now-drafted article may be merged to other articles at editorial discretion, namely to The Mummy (2017 film) or Universal Monsters. Since there is a pretty clear consensus that this article should be moved to "Dark Universe (film series)" on the talk page, I will be moving this article to Draft:Dark Universe (film series). Mz7 (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Universe (Universal Monsters)[edit]

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

Article is for a film series that does not yet exist. Only one film produced so far, so article fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose:~~ It doesn't fail CRYSTAL by any means. This Universal Monsters series has been developing for a few years now to the point that 2014's Dracula Untold was nearly considered to be part of it, The Mummy will be released a mere month from now, at least two of the films already have release dates for 2018 and 2019, they all have producers with Alex Kurtzman heading the universe, and a few of the upcoming films already have writers. They are also currently talking with actors and directors for the upcoming films, with Guillermo Del Toro, Bill Condon ([60]), and Angelina Jolie considered for Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein. Most of this is cited in the articles. Dark Knight 2149 15:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But none of them have started filming yet. See WP:NFF. Also, it is very rare for us to have film series articles until there are three films in a series. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are frankly concerns that should have been raised before the article was created. Really, this should have been a draft before anything else. At this point, the universe is so far in development that there's no point in a straight deletion unless something does happen in the vain of a cancellation. Dark Knight 2149 15:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to draft: Per above. Dark Knight 2149 15:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Universal Monsters in the spirit of WP:NFF. This is essentially a film series article with only one film produced. The other films in development are not guaranteed to be produced, so we should not assume that they will exist and that a series will exist. I have no problem with the page history being placed in draft space until it is clear that there is a set of films. Wikipedia needs to follow and not lead, and we are getting ahead of ourselves here in laying out the series. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a "Shared universe" section at The Mummy (2017 film). That's where most people will go for this information right now. -- Forty.4 (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gene93k: I'm not sure that this is a can be considered a debate. So far, there seems to be a unanimous agreement that the article be merged. The question right now is "Merged where?". There are currently proposals to place it in draft space, at Universal Monsters, or at The Mummy (2017 film). Dark Knight 2149 03:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's appropriate to have it in both articles, but more important to have it at The Mummy. -- Forty.4 (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to The Mummy (2017 film) for now (per nom and Gene) Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 03:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - i see no reason for merging or deletion. Sources are good. The article is good and relevant.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per above --Impending IP (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources only verify information related to the individual films but the fact remains that only one film exists at this time. One film does not constitute a series, therefore there is no series as stated in the article. The other films listed in the article are so early in development that it's is a real possibility that this "series" may never come to fruition. That's why it is being suggested that the information be merged until such time the series is more likely to exist.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - But again, bare in mind that this shared universe (It's not a "film series"; it's multiple film series) is far enough along that 2014's Dracula Untold was on the cusp of being the first film, which only changed when it flopped. It goes without saying that the actors and creative teams for the future films are already set. This isn't quite as black-and-white as you are making it. Dark Knight 2149 14:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - As WP:NFF states "there is no "sure thing" production". Anything can happen and all these well intentioned plans can go away at an instance, even for high-profile releases. The Amazing Spider-Man 3 went away, after AS2 tanked. Same thing for the sequel to 2015's Fantastic Four. King Arthur was set for a six-film series before that bombed. Again, we should wait until the series is more likely to exist.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You completely missed my point but, given that I didn't vote Keep, it doesn't really matter. Dark Knight 2149 18:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel like this should be draftified to avoid loss of edit history and because there is a decent chance that this series does indeed become a hit.★Trekker (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: The film buff in me wants to keep this page, but the level-headed Wikipedia editor in me says the appropriate action would be to remove this from the main space and allow us to edit it behind-the-scenes. After the second film in the shared universe has begun production, I would be in favor of returning this to the main space under the name "Dark Universe (film series)". DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 21:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draft There's a lot of work that would be a pitty to lose if the article is eventually renamed into (film series) and kept. Hoverfish Talk 15:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This proposition is completely ridiculous. The same could have been said about the DC Extended Universe when it was first announced and only Man of Steel existed therein. With the mass information regarding the series being released, a webpage, a graphic design, a theme, directors and writers attached - what would the constructive nature be in deleting the page?! Makes zero sense. No, this film series is a-go and has a second film in pre-production currently. Definitely keep this page as is. Just needs to be retitled to Dark Universe (film series).--50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First WP:OTHERSTUFF, If I recall there were many problems with that page when it was announced. It doesn't mean we should repeat them here. Secondly, its not "a-go" until the second film has been completed, although that likelihood increases when filming begins. Many of film have died in pre-production. Superman Lives anyone?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Second" - WP:OTHERSTUFF User:TriiipleThreat -- Superman Lives never entered the filming stage. You just contradicted yourself. Not to mention Superman Lives was never going to be a film series. In regards to the current state of this page, it is definitely a film series, as Dracula Untold was originally the first film in the series, (though it has since been down-played). Dracula Untold information, The Mummy and Bride of Frankenstein --- that's three films. To say "Hey let's delete a page simply because the second "official" movie isn't out yet - is super counterproductive.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now, who's on Third?!....--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? OTHERSTUFF has to do with arguments to avoid during deletion discussions, in this case the IP suggested this article should be kept because DC Extended Universe existed. Superman Lives is an example of a film dying in pre-production since the IP seemed to suggest that the next installment is guaranteed to be made because it's in pre-production. That's not contradictory they are unrelated points. Dracula Untold is not an installment in this this series. You can't have it both ways. There is no guarantee that the Bride of Frankenstein will get made so we can't treat it as a part of a series per WP:CRYSTAL. Removing this article for the time being is very productive as this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site devoted to speculative future events.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft, merge relevant information to Universal Monsters or The Mummy (2017 film): Per WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL, the article is misleading on a fundamental level. There is no film series, and there are no films. There is only a film. The article can be maintained in draftspace until such time filming commences as suggested by Wikipedia guidelines.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seriously don't get how this deletion is even plausible. With a release date, directors, writers, producers, actors, a webpage, a theme score/logo, and various stages of development --- how is this even in question? Talk about petty nitpicking.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I still support moving the page to a draft, but I think the main point that people are continuing to neglect with the "There's only one film" argument is that 2014's Dracula Untold was also intended to be in the Dark Universe. Sure, Universal changed this when the film failed, but this is still nonetheless important to take into consideration. The "one film" argument isn't quite as black-and-white as people here are making it sound. Dark Knight 2149 21:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is Dracula Untold a part of the series? If the answer is no, then we cannot count it as one. Who knows if The Mummy fails they can just say the same thing and keep kicking the can down the road--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but it is still important when considering Dark Universe's development as a body of films, and it merits some consideration, though it is by no means a game changer. That's largely why I still think draft space is the best immediate option. Dark Knight 2149 21:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dracula Untold may still prove to be re-worked into the franchise in a way, following further releases. It remains to be seen. As User:Darkknight2149 pointed out, and I tried to up there^ it was innitially film #1. It was the case prior to the studio having a solid plan in place with a series name, logo, etc. The point I'm making is the studio is much more invested in the series at this point; and will have two films released within two weeks, and one in pre-production. That's a film series, no matter how you look at it.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Come back when it is reworked into the franchise. As of now, sources indicate that it is not and therefore there is no series at this time.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. When the second and third film enter production then it warrants its own article, but as of now, no - it doesn't need its own article here in this site.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal discussions[edit]

Proposal #1[edit]

I propose that we copy the current article into draft space (for if we need to resurrect the article). Then, we add the details of the planned cinematic universe to Universal Monsters and create a Future section at The Mummy (2017 film). In short, this would be an amalgamation of everyone's suggestions. Dark Knight 2149 00:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 01:14, 11 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) 04:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular opposition to converting this to a draft for the time being, but I would note today's very much on point Verge article, Megan Farokhmanesh, "The Mummy trailer is selling an extended universe nobody asked for", The Verge (May 18, 2017). bd2412 T 00:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That article doesn't really say anything relevant to this AFD: yes, a lot of people think the whole adventure is stupid and the movie looks not-good, but that doesn't necessarily mean the adventure won't happen at all, since a lot of movies people think look bad wind up making money and getting sequels anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If audience/critical reception was always the same as the box office returns, then the Transformers films and Star Wars prequels would have performed much more poorly. Only time and The Mummy will tell if these shared universe plans will be realised. Dark Knight 2149 00:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously User:BD2412 -- What on Earth does one article's opinion have to do with this shared universe? Who cares what Megan Farokhmanesh has to say. The studio has and is putting forth money for a film series; that is based on properties that they own, and even some characters they created themselves. That article is not applicable here at all.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was thinking the opposite. Third-party criticism of the shared universe in a reliable source is evidence of its notability. bd2412 T 21:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third party criticism is important to keep in mind when predicting if The Mummy will be successful enough for the other films to happen. However, public and journalistic opinions of a movie don't always line up with the box office, as seen with films like Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace and Transformers: Age of Extinction (for instance). Dark Knight 2149 21:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, though opinions matter - this film hasn't even been released yet. It has zero relevence to this movement.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:32, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bank Chor[edit]

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

The article is promotional and speculative as the topic is about a film that has not even been produced. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 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 03:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-The film is produced by Y-Films a subsidiary of Yash Raj Films which is one of the biggest film production houses in India.The film is also completed and is slated for release in June 2017 [61] and has been covered by the Indian mainstream media [62][63][64].The film stars established actors like Riteish Deshmukh and Vivek Oberoi.I have added a few more sources to the page and I feel the subject passes WP:NFILM. FITINDIA 08:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- WP:NFF allows movies whose principal photography has begun to be kept, provided it passes WP:GNG which it probably does as well, considering most Indian mainstream media has covered it. Apart from those above Indian Express, Mid Day and The Times of India have also covered it. On an unrelated note, its trailer has also released, and its funny. Jupitus Smart 12:34, 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. clpo13_(talk) 22:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nirala Sweets[edit]

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

A local company with no notability. Greenbörg (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is poor but there appears to be adequate sources that establish notability.

This one from The Nation" gives a lot of background details.
The Pakistan Today newpaper reports on a raid on the bakeries for selling substandard items
Here's a reference in a book and it says the Nirala Sweets are famous

All in all, although the article could do with a lot of work, this appears to be a notable topic. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with User:HighKing, judging from the available sources it seems to be a notable establishment. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) - Mr X 19:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nayyirah Waheed[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BASIC. The only available reliable source seems to be the cited The Hindu opinion article. - Mr X 20:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did a quick media search and found a ton of extremely reliable sources on her, including coverage in Vibe, Essence, W Magazine, Teen Vogue, The Guardian, New York Daily News, E! News, The Telegraph, and Wired Magazine. In addition, she has been described as "perhaps the most famous poet on Instagram" in Jet Magazine. While this poet is young and at the start of her career, she has already established her notability per Wikipedia guidelines. I have added all of these citations and the info I found to the article.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:28, 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 03:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Excellent sources provided by SouthernNights show GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:18, 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 Speedy keep. Wrong forum. A merge should be proposed on the article talk page. Michig (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Timperley[edit]

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

Not notable. Merge to Chris Sievey Fuddle (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:42, 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) 22:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Branchinelli[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet notability standards. The references in the article are from weak sources, and google searches for "Louis Branchinelli" and "Lou B" didn't turn up many results, were filled with people and organizations other than the topic of this article, and had a lot of self-published hits (like linkedin and twitter). Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not anywhere near enough references, or from substantial sources Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough good sources to establish notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:25, 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) 22:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reign of the Fallen[edit]

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

Not notable according to the general notability guidelines or the film notability guidelines. Source search turns up sources about a YA novel series of the same name, and one archived interview. (Done on behalf of 122.108.141.214) Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 01:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science Fiction-related deletion discussions. 122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references for this. Non notable Fan Film Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable according to the film notability guidelines. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 04:37, 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) 22:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Brown (California politician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Being an unsuccessful candidate for elected office does not confer notability. Kurykh (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Unsuccessful political candidate. Meatsgains (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NPOL. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsuccessful election candidates do not get Wikipedia articles for that fact per se, except very occasionally in the rare instance that the media coverage explodes far out of proportion to what could be routinely expected to exist for all candidates in all elections (i.e. Christine O'Donnell.) But the sourcing here is overwhelmingly local to his own district, and the few sources that actually expand beyond the purely local are not substantively about Brown, but merely namecheck his existence in coverage of the incumbent he ran against. And there's no strong evidence that he had any preexisting notability for other reasons, either — the "life and career" section includes impressive-sounding claims, but cites no sources to demonstrate that he was getting media coverage for any of it at the time. This is simply not what it takes to make an unelected candidate for office notable enough for a standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Leahy[edit]

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

Nonnotable local level political activist Staszek Lem (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel this is a WP:GNG keeper due to his status as the youngest elected official in Illinois with a lot of related press.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN as a local school board member so the appropriate metric is WP:GNG. The references in the article include coverage several local papers and the "national" coverage include a op-ed the subject submitted to "The Hill" and a link to a local news article included in a roundup of Illinois politics in "Politico." The local coverage is WP:ROUTINE. In past AfD's being the youngest officeholder in a state has not been seen as notable, in an of itself. --Enos733 (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prior to deciding to make this page, I did significant research to determine if this topic meets the WP:GNG. Based on those guidelines, I think there is no doubt that there is "significant coverage" which certainly covers the topic at length. These are not routine as most local elected officials and school board member do not receive this coverage. It also clearly does not fall into the guideline of WP:ROUTINE as it is not simply basic campaign coverage or something of the like. The reliability and independence of the subject does not appear to be in question, so that seems to fit the criteria as well. Based on these, it should certainly be presumed to be notable. If there is a reason why the presumption should not stand here that can certainly be argued, but I think based on the criteria the presumption is there. User:Enos733 do you know of any similar pages which have been deleted in the AfD? T--User:Illinoiswiki10 (User talk:Illinoiswiki10 / Special:Contributions/Illinoiswiki10 / 16:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples WP:Articles for deletion/Christopher Seeley (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Sam Juhl, and WP:Articles for deletion/Terence Smith (politician) --Enos733 (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being the youngest person to hold an otherwise non-notable office is not a notability claim that confers an automatic presumption of notability — school board trustees do not get Wikipedia articles just for being school board trustees, and being the youngest trustee on the board does not make him more notable than his other colleagues in and of itself. None of Wikipedia's inclusion standards confer any special status on being the youngest person to achieve something in and of itself — the thing they achieved still has to clear a notability test on its face, and if it doesn't then age doesn't confer a free notability boost.
And there's no WP:GNG pass here either, as the sourcing here is far too strongly dependent on blogs and purely routine local coverage in the local media — every school board member who exists at all could always show this much local coverage. And of the two sources which do expand beyond the purely local, one contains a mere blurb's worth of information about him in a "potpourri of many topics" sort of article, and thus isn't substantive coverage of him, while the other is an op-ed where he's the bylined author and not the subject — so neither of those sources is contributing anything to making him more notable than the norm for a school board trustee. For an officeholder at this level of government, the sourcing has to show him as significantly more notable than the norm before he clears GNG in lieu of failing NPOL — but the sourcing here isn't showing that at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Leahy isn't just the youngest school board member, he is the youngest elected official in the state. This lends enough notability to give this article a chance. The page is less than a month old. Editors may be able to find additional sources to strengthen notability by GNG, without the prospect of deletion circling overhead.--Libertyguy (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Being youngest is not among our defining notability criteria here in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Being the youngest elected official in the entire state isn't a notability criterion either. Our notability criteria for political officeholders are based on whether the level of office held satisfies NPOL or not, and give no quarter to the age at which they happened to get elected. Even in those one or two oddball situations where a small town has elected a mayor who was literally a child, what makes them potentially notable enough for a Wikipedia article is whether or not they pass WP:GNG because an abnormally deep volume of media coverage resulted from how unusual that is — but if solid media coverage doesn't materialize to confer a GNG pass, then their age itself doesn't create any sort of inclusion freebie that would exempt them from having to pass GNG just because of their age. Bearcat (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete "Leahy was elected with 28% of the vote, or 131 votes, in an uncontested election with four candidates on the ballot." suggests that even contemporaneous press coverage because of his age may not be sufficient to establish notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN. He certainly may be the youngest person to be elected to this role, but it is still to an non significant role,as per Bearcat (talk) So no page for you! :-) Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN and subsequently WP:GNG. Being the youngest doesn't make him notable. As he has failed WP:POLITICIAN, the higher standard of notability in WP:BIO must be applied, and there is no automatic presumption of being youngest within that standard, automatically conferring notability, hence he fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 18:04, 24 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) 22:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BuyerZone[edit]

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

A highly promotional pages on an unremarkable private business. The article is sourced to online directories, passing mentions or otherwise unsuitable sources. Significant RS coverage not found. The article has been dePROD'ed with the suggestion that the story in Fox Business represented significant coverage: Help for Small Businesses Getting Office Equipment This article does not strike me as sufficiently independent, with copy such as:

"'A lot of businesses undertaking the purchasing process have to do a lot of comparison research and shopping around,' said Steve Gottlieb, vice president of product management at BuyerZone. 'That’s the pain point we’re trying to alleviate.'" Etc.

This looks more like a product placement. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per K.e.coffman... seems promotional. Sources are not significant. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article sourced to listings, blogs, passing mention and routine announcements. There is brief coverage on Purch Group, the current owners, and I see no evidence that it attained notability during its independent existence. AllyD (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hell fire and damnation - The only thing keeping this away from G11 is that I don't feel like spending the time looking through all ~40 revisions on the off chance one of them is at all acceptable. The company may be notable, but the article needs attention from an explosives expert. TimothyJosephWood 12:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promo piece and fails WP:Corp for notability. Kierzek (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The FBC piece mentioned in the lede is clearly a paid WP:PROMO piece. Nothing here is neutral and just attempts to use a 'spam sources' strategy to try to throw off editors who would have deleted this long ago. Nate • (chatter) 23:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this spam. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed most of the junk. Still fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG though. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:18, 25 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] "Johnny Launched". 2011-03-25. Retrieved 2016-07-10. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

[2] GRD, Piotr (2011-03-25). "HelioHost Server Monitor". Retrieved 2016-07-10. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

[International_travel,_road_crash,_pedestrian_safety,_country_road_condition_2013-3] "Road Crash Statistics". International travel, road crash, pedestrian safety, country road condition. 2013-11-24. Retrieved 2017-05-18.

[CDC_CDC_2014-4] CDC; CDC (2014-10-07). "Motor Vehicle Crash Injuries". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved 2017-05-18.

[5] "Twenties: Season 1", Amazon.com, retrieved 9 May 2017

[6] "Twenties: the Series". Dekkoo.com. Retrieved 9 May 2017. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[7] "Twenties on Sparkktv". Sparkktv. Retrieved 9 May 2017.

[8] "Jane Henson's Nativity Story". Retrieved 3 May 2017.

[9] "GoTrusted introduces Mr. TMI". GoTrusted. 23 March 2011. Retrieved 9 May 2017.

[10] ttps://www.gamespot.com/forums/games-discussion-1000000/vice-city-hands-down-has-the-best-soundtrack-out-o-27530615/

[11] ttp://thebests.kotaku.com/the-best-licensed-video-game-soundtrack-of-all-time-1685069296

[12] ttp://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/seven-songs-you-only-know-and-love-if-you-played-grand-theft-auto-vice-city-7558

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]