Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 November	25 November >

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 merge to Thanksgiving (United States). (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The First Thanksgiving[edit]

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

discussion for whether this is a suitable standalone article after being split from Thanksgiving (United States) Prisencolin (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Thanksgiving (United States). A standalone piece is redundant as this topic is the basis of the original article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge- most of this is covered in the Thanksgiving article.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Most of the information is already in the Thanksgiving (United States) article. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above Wolfson5 (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Robot combat. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Combots[edit]

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

No evidence of passing GNG. External links that are active relate to RoboGames and not Combots. LukeSurl^{t c} 20:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robot combat. The organization Combots isn't notable, and the neologism isn't notable either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robot combat, they are basically amething and very plausible term. Similar terms like Combat robots, Combat robot and Robot fight already redirect there. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted by Orangemike. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Abiola Robinson[edit]

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

Non-notable individual who fails WP:NACTOR. The article subject is described on the article as a costume designer, but a search turned up no in-depth information on that claim, so the article most likely fails WP:CREATIVE as well. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with the nom. Bio of non notable artist sourced with unreliable blog and Imdb sources — Ammarpad (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rahbah[edit]

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

This seems to be a page for a city that is already covered at Al-Rahbah. If so, should be deleted and made into a redirect. Can an expert (or someone with passing understanding of city names in Yemen) weigh in? Owlsmcgee (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm already seeing my source of confusion: Rahbah is also a redirect to Al-Rahbah. They are clearly different cities, one in Yemen and one in Syria. This page should not be deleted, but the confusion about redirects ought to be sorted out. Sorry for the haste in flagging. -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as the nom is withdrawing. Real population center, however non-beautiful.[1] --Oakshade (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romance-speaking Asia[edit]

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

Original research. "Romance-speaking Asia" returns only Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. It's not a natural search term and the article duplicates content from the main Romance languages article and various others, a lot of which has simply been copy and pasted. No evidence that "Romance-speaking Asia" is a topic in its own right. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be WP:SYNTHESIS. Pburka (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a usual term. This is especially true because the prevalence of French usage in Vietnam and neighboring countries is nothing nearly as large as in the so-called "Francophone Africa".John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original researchHariboneagle927 (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some "keep" opinions are pretty weak, but the "delete" side's counting of scholarly articles isn't exactly hard science either. Ultimately this is, as with many scholars, a matter of editorial judgment, and we don't currently have agreement about whether she's notable enough as a scientist or university official to merit inclusion. Sandstein 08:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Langat Thoruwa[edit]

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

Not many sources discuss her. Not a prolific researcher. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (no recommendation at this time); She's rather frequently cited by other scholars. See Google Scholar. Her work appears to have made an impact in her field. She was also the director of one of the campuses of Kenyatta University. Finding information online about African topics can be difficult. Just some thoughts to consider. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this was a Western professor she would undoubtedly fail WP:NPROF. Maybe we should give positive discrimination to African people, maybe we shouldn't. Just saying its a tricky one, so not !voting either way. Dysklyver 14:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is a professor. There should be no discrimination against African universities.--Ipigott (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PROF, and it doesn't matter that someone is merely a professor or where they are one in terms of notability as others above have seemed to imply. I'm not finding much secondary coverage about the subject, and the research output seen through Google Scholar or other similar sites doesn't really pass the "average professor test" of PROF in totality (which is practically the lowest bar we have for academic notability). Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just tacking on since the discussion reopened for more clarification. Keep votes so far have basically argued that she is a professor and that she is a campus director. The former definitely is not in line with WP:PROF, and the director position isn't really anything that stands above an average professor test. A professor can often have positions that sound important within a university or groups of academics, but don't really rise above the normal expectations of a professor being on boards, etc. A "director" of satellite campuses for instance can be more a bureaucratic position, and definitely wouldn't be something notable for creating a BLP even if the person was from a western university that is already likely prone to get more attention. PROF already is a low bar, but nothing really stands out here or at the article that would result in a keep consensus. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't keep biographies just because the subject is a professor. WP:PROF#C5 applies to scholars who hold named chairs at major institutions, and neither criteria is met in this case. Google Scholar returns no papers with more than 100 citations, and a h-index of 10, which is nowhere near a convincing pass of WP:PROF#C1 in a high-citation field like chemistry. – Joe (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep African professors are going to be systematically hard to cover using standard measures (such as citation index), moreover she is a director of a campus of a major university: that also should be enough for passing WP:N. Sadads (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I had closed this AFD as keep, but after discussion on my talk page, I have reopened it for further discussion to get input from additional editors. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting conundrum, the issue is that she is a professor, African and a women, and some note of this should be made, given that she is, for African standards, quite relevant. Dysklyver 09:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Sadads, being the director of the campus for a major university does seem to pass notability standards. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article fails WP:PROF, as she is only associate professor, but passes WP:BIO, a higher standard of notability, as being director of a major public institution. User:Joe Roe, Google Scholar doesn't apply in this case, as it doesn't cover Africa, China, India, most of Asia, really just the west, and bits of Australia and New Zealand. scope_creep (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Erm, ^{[citation needed]} on that. Google Scholar indexes scholarly publications in any language and casts a notoriously wide net (i.e. it includes a lot of non-RS garbage). I understand where the keep !voters are coming from: scholars in the developing world tend to be underrepresented in standard citation metrics, and I do believe that calls for us to loosen up our usual criteria for WP:PROF. But Wikipedia's systematic bias does not make all African professors inherently notable. I cannot see what in WP:BIO supports being "director of a major public institution" as establishing notability. I'd also disagree that a satellite campus of Kenyatta University can be described as a "major public institution".

At the end of the day if the subject passes any notability guideline, then there should be sources – where are they? – Joe (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with User:Joe Roe. There should be at least one independent source from which we can verify WP:V, our core policy. If we want to counter systematic bias then start it right, not by making every African continent's professor inherently notable because it is easy to do. AfD closer has serious job to do, without any independent source we can't keep it. I might consider her notable if she was director of the most prestigious university of Kenya which it isn't (i.e. it is third largest). Störm (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with a lot of things being said here for keeps that put them on very weak ground when it comes to actually assessing WP:CON, especially the comment that being a director of a satellite campus satisfies BIO yet somehow fails PROF (directors often are professors). If that were the defining feature of notability, we could have a stub article that just says she's the director, but that normally isn't considered notable for most universities even of larger size. I have to agree that there just isn't the secondary independent sourcing out there that tells us why the subject is notable, but instead editors are zeroing in on words like director or saying odd things like Africa is underrepresented somehow on GS. Even if the Africa bias comments were true, such an argument would violate WP:NPOV as we take information as mainstream sources describe them and omitting what doesn't get coverage.

The closer definitely has a bit to sort through here rather than just counting !votes at face value, otherwise we are just creeping the PROF bar even lower than it historically has been. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was one of the authors in a 2012 article about new napthalenes (eucleanal A and B) from the magic guarri (medicinal plant), a potential new antibacterial agent. SunnyBoi SunnyBoi (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EPSCoR Attention Consortium[edit]

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

I can't find any in-depth coverage of this in any searches. Some brief mentions of EPSCoR, but nothing about this attention consortium. Article was created by a COI editor who has since been blocked. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naija News[edit]

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

Promotional article for non notable blog/website masquerading as newspaper. Referenced with 3 sources back to the website WP:SELFPUBLISH, one unreliable blog/forum and namedropping with Alexa rank. Fails WP:WEB completely and nothing about this blog in any RS — Ammarpad (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Ammarpad (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Ammarpad (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — Ammarpad (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Little George and The Christmas Socks[edit]

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

Non-notable book lacking non-trivial support. Nothing comes up searching for ""Little George and The Christmas Socks" in Googl reddogsix (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely zero Google hits, and the page was created by a SPA which shares a name with the narrator of the audiobook. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable book where the author doesn't have an article, and unable to find reliable sources regarding this book. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 14:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the SPA I mentioned above, JamesCartmell, is currently under investigation as a possible sockpuppeteer of David Hemp, another SPA who has repeatedly deleted the PROD for this page. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article has no references and no external links, and it seems that the page was created by the narrator of the audiobook. Vorbee (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable book. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Service module[edit]

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

This article is original research from 2004. The topic is notable but duplicates quality articles including Apollo Command/Service Module, Orion Service Module, Zvezda (ISS module), all well supported, and Soyuz. This article adds nothing to the encyclopedia. Fails WP:V. A PROD was reverted without improvement. Rhadow (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the topic is notable but we only have articles on specific instances, surely a general article is warranted? The list of service modules alone is enough reason to keep the article, the rest of the text can be improved. For example, Section 2.4.2 of this book discusses the general concept over several pages in relation to satellites, and our article could be expanded to include this. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it does seem to me that navigation is improved a little by an article/list like this and/or Category:Service modules. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - I feel like it could be a valid notable page, and I'll personally commit to trying to improve it. Shelbystripes (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Apollo Command/Service Module per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usage as a primary topic must be "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined." I don't see how that can be said about Apollo Command/Service Module when we have e.g. Orion Service Module and Zvezda (ISS module).--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Useage of "Service module" in sources for space topics will overwhelmingly refer to Apollo. Orion's SM isn't nearly as widely known, just because it's more current than the Apollo one, and Zvezda is...Zvezda, not "Zvezda service module". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Apollo Command/Service Module per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; this article largely contains WP:OR, and much of the listed examples are either fictitious or cancelled programs. The service module is associated with the Service Module component of the CSM in the Apollo program, and this page should redirect to its page. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pontificalibus and Shelbystripes. Doesn't make sense to redirect to Apollo Command/Service Module because the point of the article is to describe the general concept, and the Apollo SM is just one example. Balon Greyjoy's claim that "much of the listed examples are either fictitious or cancelled programs" is highly misleading. There are some fictional examples listed at the end; I'm not aware of any examples being fictitious in the sense of being fake. Bushranger says that Zvezda is...Zvezda, not "Zvezda Service Module" and yet the lead of wikipedia's article on Zvezda says also known as the Zvezda Service Module. Rhadow includes completely irrelevant/spurious claims in the nomination (eg, "a PROD was reverted without improvement" — reverting a PROD does not carry any requirement that the article be improved). – Gpc62 (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gpc62 -- There's no obligation to improve; I know that. I probably should have said "without comment". I gave my logic for deletion. I would like to hear why the dePRODder believes a ten year old bit of original research should stay in the encyclopedia, that's all. Rhadow (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just like rocket nozzle or airlock, this is a component of space hardware that is conceptually shared across multiple vehicles, with a separate design history for each nation, generation and vehicle. There is plenty of scope for an overview and comparison, there is no shortage of sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Healthcare Today[edit]

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

The article has been at enWP for ten+ years, and has not progressed and still does not have independent references that demonstrate any notability. Makes unsupported claims, and reads as still being as light advertising as initially created. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG. The website itself appears to be out of date: the Headlines page has "news" from 2014 and the Latest News page appears to be just an aggregator of newspapers' health section stories. I suspect it's an ad sheet for health-related businesses, so fails WP:CORP. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Their website contains lots of out of date news leading me to believe it isn't maintained properly and they are NN. Szzuk (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOW and WP:CSD#A7 apply here. Additionally, Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah AlSalim[edit]

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

Self created article with no claim to notability, a programmer who runs an advice blog and boasts 250 customers doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG and there are no sources cited. Speedy deletion tag was removed by Ammarpad so here we are. Melcous (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. No claim of significance within the article either. Article created by an editor known as AbdullahOfficial; speedy removed twice by an IP and then once again by Ammarpad, but I don't know why. Perhaps Ammarpad can clarify if we're missing regional sources, in which case I may reconsider my !vote. Thanks, Lourdes 11:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, @Lourdes: Sorry if my removing of A7 tag bother you much, but as per as the WP:CSD policy, any editor (save creator) can remove speedy tag if he believes it doesn't apply. I explain more here, since this is AfD page. Thanks. — Ammarpad (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I wholly agree with the nom, only that I think (may be wrongly) that it can't be A7'd. — Ammarpad (talk) 11:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage I can see in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - And likely A7/G11 if anyone feels like doing the particulars. GMG ^talk 19:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

StopDELETE! Hello ladies and gentlemen, Thank you for your interest in developing Wikipedia

I know that Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, but I have created this article as a biography of a person of importance in his country and famous for his specialty. My comment to your audience is that today we find in Wikipedia 10,000+ profiles for people who may be less important or higher than me. If you see my profile contains something against the Wikipedia rules please mention it or modify it This page is for you but I do not think my page contains anything outside the Wikipedia rules Hope you a good day . AbdullahOfficial (talk) 7:39, 25 November 2017 (+2:00)

@AbdullahOfficial: While you're correct in your statement regarding other profiles on Wikipedia, this is not a valid reason to keep the page in question: the page other stuff exists explains this in detail. Unfortunately, the article appears to fail Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. In addition, it appears from your user name and your editing history that you may have a personal connection to the subject of the article: if you haven't already done so, please read our guidelines for managing conflicts of interest to help you understand how to behave in relation to this. Regards, ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ladies and gentlemen, if this thing bothers you and outside the Wikipedia laws, I apply to delete my account and my page in Wikipedia.

Thank you @~dom Kaos~ , @John Pack Lambert , @~dom Kaos~ ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdullahOfficial (talk • contribs) 11:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AbdullahOfficial: please don't feel that you have to delete your account. Wikipedia benefits from the fact that so many diverse people edit it, and you are welcome to stay and contribute, as long as you continue to stick to our guidelines. Please also feel free to visit Wikipedia's Teahouse, where new editors can find support from more experienced Wikipedians. Regards, ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @~dom Kaos~ again for your reply. Before I list my page in Wikipedia, I have learned how to write a CV correctly without mistakes, even if you now see my resume you will see that everything was written correctly with all the information added. Experienced managers will not contribute effectively to the development of Wikipedia where I see daily. Many managers and supervisors delete entire articles or change them according to their personal opinions.

AbdullahOfficial, the problem is that Wikipedia is not the place to post your CV, even if it is written correctly as a CV. The appropriate place for that is a site like LinkedIn. Wikipedia is a place to write encyclopedia articles, and only for subjects that have received sustained in-depth coverage in published sources, usually things like books, magazines and newspapers. It does not appear that you have yet received this type of coverage, and so you do not yet qualify for a Wikipedia article. GMG ^talk 12:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GMG Perhaps your words are only To implement Wikipedia laws. No more. Although I see many articles in Wikipedia, it is a biography of designers, programmers and photographers. Perhaps if we talking more, the discussion would not end. What did you decide about my page? If your decision is to delete the page, please delete it now I was happy to talk with you, I wish you a good day — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdullahOfficial (talk • contribs) 12:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that all the articles you see here are not written by their subjects, they are written by volunteers because they are notable. When you are notable, one day someone will write one about you, but inordinate insistence to have article about you may amount to narcissism. You should understand Wikipedia is an educational project it is not social media ,–Ammarpad (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong venue Use WP:RfD instead (non-admin closure) {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ficha de universidad[edit]

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

Redirect with some strange letters instead of name in English Wikisaurus (talk) 08:58, 24 November 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 November 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong venue Use WP:RfD instead (non-admin closure) {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ficha de libro[edit]

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

Redirect with some strange letters instead of name in English Wikisaurus (talk) 08:58, 24 November 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 November 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong venue Use WP:RfD instead (non-admin closure) {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ficha de científico[edit]

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

Redirect with some strange letters instead of name in English Wikisaurus (talk) 08:58, 24 November 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 November 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong venue Use WP:RfD instead (non-admin closure) {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ficha de actor[edit]

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

Redirect with some strange letters instead of name in English Wikisaurus (talk) 08:58, 24 November 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 November 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Deleted (G11) by RHAworth - Just to note there's currently an MFD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Dj Lytmas which was the first article on Lytmas to be created, Thanks, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 13:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DVJ LYTMAS[edit]

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

Promotional bio of non notable musician who fails WP:MUSICBIO and lacks significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Referenced poorly with bunch of totally unreliable blog sources. Originally created as VJ LYTMAS and one user requested userfication. Now it is rebranded with fake/customized name and moved to mainspace to circumvent review and further the promotion campaign. — Ammarpad (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Ammarpad (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Ammarpad (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. — Ammarpad (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Just to note, CSD, bordering on WP:IAR has been filed.Let's see whether that is accepted:)Winged Blades^Godric 09:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avendesora Password Utility[edit]

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

Does not establish product notability. Primarily promotional in tone. Google search does not find third-party coverage, only its own coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Article was deleted yesterday (CSD). COI account. Article does not show notability and is promotional, written by a COI account. We should not even be here as it is a clear-cut case. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Alexf.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In my view, the article creator has avoided promotional tone. It is however purely a nuts-and-bolts description of the utility with neither a claim to nor evidence of attained notability. Nor are my searches finding better. AllyD (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NewPipe[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. I didn't find in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Rentier (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are multiple articles talking about NewPipe https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe/issues/666#issue-254156588 Will try to detail the history and statistics a bit closer.

Bauksitt (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 01:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sro23 (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the present sources are all primary, this means no coverage from independent secondary sources. I can't find any that can establish notability also. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wheelchair. The consensus is more or less evenly split on whether to delete or merge, but per WP:PRESERVE I will err towards giving editors the chance to salvage what material they can. – Joe (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelbench[edit]

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

Are these things actually in current production? Or is it, like the talk page says, something that only about a countable number of people actually use? That seems to be the case. This should be deleted. Maybe they can be mentioned in the wheelchair article, but this article is misleading. It suggests that they are in current production like wheelchairs, which doesn't seem to really be the case. RightGot (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 01:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete There are two, count 'em, two real GScholar hits for these things as the article defines it, and one seems to be paraphrased from the other. GHits appear to more commonly refer to the a different contrivance consisting of a bench with a wheel at one end and handles at the other, allowing it to be moved around like a barrow, and most images of this seem to be of one particular object. And they get more scattered after that. What this seems to be is a coinage that pops up whenever someone puts at least one wheel on a bench, even if they aren't functional; but the number of hits are smallish, and don't seem to coalesce around any particular meaning, and especially not the one given in our article. Mangoe (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A brief paragraph in the Wheelchair article would be sufficient. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not being "in current production" is not at all a reason to delete. The term "wheelbench" referring to a wheeled bench that can sit doesn't seem to be an actual term. Even the object in the photo more resembles a stretcher, which is probably where this article should merge into. --Oakshade (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge paragraph to wheelchair. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- It's unclean whether this is indeed a "thing" as no sources for this are apparent. There's nothing to merge as the article lists one link (presumably a forum) which is dead. So there's nothing useful in the article that could be merged. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to wheelchair. This [2] was "published" in 2009, but Disabled World News seems to take articles from anyone and the article was created prior to 2009. Here [3] is a blog where someone says they use it (and link to the WP article), so I don't doubt that it's real. This company [4] says they sell them. Probably not enough here with RS for its own article. (There are also [5] outdoor stretchers used for all-terrain rescue. If those are covered somewhere, that could be another possible target). MB 20:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell how old the wheelchair marketer's page is, but the main page of the site dates only back to 2013, so it's pretty likely they've just copied that text from WP; there's no evidence that I see that they actually rent or sell such a thing. The other links all eventually end up at one person's advocacy site back in Norway, as does the one image we have (they uploaded it). Mangoe (talk) 11:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't verify any of this. There are definitely rolling stretchers, but that's different from what the article describes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Evernight (series). (non-admin closure) J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 05:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Evernight characters[edit]

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

Nominating for deletion per WP:NOT. This is incredibly detailed WP:Fancruft listing everything about every character for a book series that is not even highly notable to begin with. Even if the fancruft were removed, the existence of this page does not seem to be warranted. Lapislazulia (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they do not contain any (non-fancruft) content that is not already included in Evernight (series), nor do they really have the potential to do so:

Lapislazulia (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge all Nom does not articulate any applicable NOT category. Still, with the amount of RS coverage I'm not finding, I don't see the need for this many spinout articles, hence my recommendation to merge and trim as viciously as needed. With a cursory glance, I'm having trouble differentiating this from a Twilight ripoff. Jclemens (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per Jclemens. There's a few reviews for each book, but not enough to justify individual articles. Merging them all into the short series page would be fine. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Evernight (series). I'm not seeing WP:RS that suggests this level of detail in a standalone article is warranted. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarath Kumara de Silva[edit]

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

Fails to satisfy the criteria of WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE. Non-notable senior public servant - just being the chairman of a state government agency does not confer automatic notability. Dan arndt (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not just a businessman (or even predominantly a businessman). Notable civil engineer and chairman of a major government agency. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just because he was the chairman of a government agency does not make him automatically notable. How is he a notable engineer, just saying it doesn’t make it so, need to provide evidence. Dan arndt (talk)+

The head of a significant government agency would definitely be considered notable if it was in the UK or USA. It is also notable if it is in Sri Lanka. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp:, where on WP does it state that the head of a government agency is automatically notable - you can’t just make up criteria to support your argument. Dan arndt (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, another editor who believes that if it's not written on sacred stone then it's not coming in! I've said it many times - if notability was determined simply by strict policies then we wouldn't bother having AfD discussions; we'd just have admins allowed to delete any article that didn't meet strictly defined criteria. Note that we do have AfD discussions! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No just another editor who believes that an individual should be notable in their own right to be included. At this stage you’ve shown no justification as to why this individual is notable apart from he was a head of a government agency, for which there is no inherent notability. Dan arndt (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To be fair, there are certain notability claims (e.g. member of a legislature) for which as long as we can verify them as true, we keep the article even if it isn't properly referenced yet. (The operative word here being yet, as the article does still have to get improved with proper referencing — we extend it the presumption of notability pending better sources, but the article is most definitely not exempted from ever having to get properly sourced.) But being the internal head of a civil service department isn't one of them — even in the UK or the USA, he would only be considered notable if he could be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG, and would not be given an automatic "no sourcing required" inclusion freebie just because he exists. But a GNG pass is not what the sources here are showing: all three of the "general references" are dead links, while the two properly footnoted references are a primary source and a blurb. That's not good enough, and it wouldn't be good enough for a civil servant in the UK or the US either. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan-Pierre Tomlin[edit]

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

One source only for this article. Other sources that can be found are not reliable or newsworthy. He's only known for this one act, and he's out of the spotlight for quite some time now. FiendYT ★ 05:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. One ref which links to a news article about him. Szzuk (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Mahmood (general)[edit]

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

Not a notable army officer. Searches doesn't show anything to establish the subject's notability. Per WP:SOLDIER, generally officers of three-star rank i.e. Lieutenant general, or above, are considered notable. Two-star rank officers aren't notable unless they have any other significant contribution or role, which is not the case here. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order: "Flag or general officers" are generally consered notable. That's any stars on their shoulders. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I added a source. two star generals are generally notable per SOLDIER. Fairly high ranking Muslim in Indian army. Possibly more non-English sources - his fairly common name makes sourcing a somewhat difficult.Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SOLDIER. No idea where the nom got the "fact" that two-star officers aren't notable. Even one-star officers (including brigadiers and commodores) are considered notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The consensus is that all generals, at least in cases where this represents commanding a significant number of soldiers, are notable. There are probably some armies that have given out the title of general too freely for it to show notability, but in the case of the Indian army, being a general is a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnpacklambert: So, do you mean "keep" then? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops, I meant keep. Sorry for the typo.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I added a reliable source for his rank, I see no reason not to follow the convention set in NSOLDIER, given that his rank seems to pass WP:V. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Story[edit]

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

Non notable composer, musician, arranger and all his array of professions. WP:BEFORE reveals no WP:RS about this person that can prove WP:SIGCOV because of both lack of independent and significant coverage. Among his array of professions I can clearly say he met none WP:AUTHOR, WP:ACADEMIC and generally fails the basic criterion for inclusion WP:GNG — Ammarpad (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Ammarpad (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Ammarpad (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A high school and elementary composer hardly meets notability requirements, emphasized by the amount of red links. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Saffo[edit]

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

Mayor of a small city (pop ~100,000). No other notable factors about him. There are thousands of mayors of small towns. I don't think that merits an encyclopedia article. MartinezMD (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 10 years in office there a lot of sources relating to the Saffo as mayor yes including bios at electionsmeets WP:GNG. Also a Cities population isnt relevant to a person notability only whether there are sufficient sources to establish notability. Gnan garra 01:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI WP:POLOUTCOMES the size of the town is *precisely* the reason I added him to AFD consideration. "Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors, although they may be notable for other reasons in addition to their mayoralty (e.g. having previously held a more notable office)." MartinezMD (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

small is a relative term and a subjective to the opinions, experiences, nuances of an individuals circumstances - 100,000 IMHO isnt anywhere near small. I also said there are enough sources/references to make Saffo notable according to WP:GNG making the cities population irrelevant. Gnan garra 08:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then they should be added to the article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, 100K isn't considered a "small town" for our purposes — it's entirely large enough that a properly sourced article about a mayor would be kept. This is still deletable in its current state, but the determining factor is its lack of quality sourcing, not the city's population. POLOUTCOMES should actually be written for added clarity, because the role of the population test has changed since it was written: it's not the marker between notable and non-notable mayors per se, but comes into play only in the question of evaluating whether the sourcing present in the article is enough or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wilmington, North Carolina#Mayors, unless the sources that are stated to exist are found. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wilmington, North Carolina#Mayors. I'm willing to reconsider this if the article sees improvement before closure, but the inclusion test for a mayor has nothing to do with the city's population — it's a factor of whether or not the mayor can be demonstrated as the subject of enough reliable source coverage about his mayoralty to clear WP:NPOL #2. Mayors of large cities can still be deleted if they aren't, and mayors of small towns can be kept if they are. But this contains no real evidence of notability at all: there's no real substance here besides a fairly boilerplate "he exists, here's his career background prior to becoming mayor, the end", and two of the three footnotes are primary sources that cannot support notability at all, while the third glancingly namechecks his existence in an article that isn't about him. And for an article that's already existed for almost a decade, it's not a good sign if this is all anybody could be arsed to do in that entire time. And it's not enough to just say that better sources exist — one has to show the evidence of that, because (a) anybody could simply say that better sources exist about anything, and (b) a lot of Wikipedia contributors have extremely wrong-headed ideas about what constitutes a good source for the purposes of demonstrating notability, frequently trying to stack it onto namechecks of the person's existence in coverage of other things and/or content in which the topic was the bylined author of the piece rather than its subject. So we don't keep an article just because somebody says that better sources are out there: we keep it if they show the evidence so that we can properly evaluate whether those other sources are good enough or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wilmington, North Carolina is a large enough jurisdiction where an independently elected mayor is a public figure in its own right, and can no longer be a "low-profile individual." A Google news search shows about 1,090 hits for "'Bill Saffo' Wilmington." Using a couple of the top hits, I updated the article to include his electoral victories and included a claim that the subject is now the longest serving mayor of Wilmington and his previous service on the Council. Primary sources, including government records, should not be discounted, as primary sources can be used to develop an article (see WP:Primary: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge"). --Enos733 (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, primary sources can be used for supplementary verification of facts, but they can't be used to demonstrate notability per se. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep City is big enough to keep the mayor. WP:HEY, I have added some material to satisfy User:Bearcat's valid point that article needs sourced expansion. But the fact that he has been a popular and successful Mayor means that there is far more sourcing on a range of issues than I have time to wade through. So I will leave this topic, with the hope that someone has the time to make further improvements.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as longest serving mayor in city's history, a fact I just added to the lede. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Linguist^un Eins ^uno 18:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Simha[edit]

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

Does not satisfy film notability guidelines (and that guideline was misinterpreted in moving from draft into article space). The film is in principal photography. Unreleased films that are in principal photography are only notable if the production itself is notable. This article says nothing about the production except that it is in progress. This article is therefore promotional.

The guideline is usually misinterpreted about films that are in principal photography, but it is still the guideline. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to Keep this article any suggestion, What is the mistake and changes to be done 10:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC) (talk)
Keep: It does satisfy WP:NFF, just no editor has had the commitment to add more production details. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to add more references 10:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC) (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going according to Wikipidia guidilines, I also created several pages before, then where was the fault. Kindly tell me. Regards B.Bhargava Teja (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to Draft space. Without in-depth discussion of the production (and that means a lot more than just routine announcements), this does not belong in Main space, for the reasons given by the nominator. If the film actually does get released next year, it can be moved back to Main space then. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the production column and kept it as routine announcements.B.Bhargava Teja (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lo Que Te Mereces Tour[edit]

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

Non-notable, unsourced concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR that has been tagged as being unreferenced for seventh months. The article was deprodded, [6], after less than an hour without an explanation or sources added to the article. Aspects (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Unsourced, and probably isn't notable. I did find some sources in Spanish, but I don't think that they are enough to establish notability. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 11:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This comes down to Spanish-language sources about this Mexican pop star. My take is that they are sufficient to pass GNG, see, for example, THIS. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist in hopes to obtain more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: are the sources covering the artist or the tour? Furthermore, what makes this tour notable enough for a standalone article, instead of being covered within the page for the artist or the album the tour was meant to promote? Ham tech person 03:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CA Suleiman[edit]

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

Only sources are primary (interviews), so it doesn't appear to pass WP:BIO. Non-notable designer. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the Washington Post article now lends notability, otherwise move to Drafts so it can be worked on further. BOZ (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: BOZ (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As sole author of "Cairo by Night" and co-author of "City of the Damned", Suleiman is notable per WP:AUTHOR, point 3, regardless of the current state of the article. Newimpartial (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO is merely a guideline of possible things that would confer notability, not a way to determine it. Just because someone wrote a book doesn't mean they are notable, as shown by WP:INHERIT. If you could list some (reliable, secondary) sources that would probably support the claim of independent notability more._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People much wiser than I in the ways of WP insist that INHERIT is intended to prevent notabilty from transferring from authors to works, but not from works to authors, which might help you make sense of WP:AUTHOR. For a robust argument to this effect (taking me to task), see this <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)&curid=1447059&diff=811645959&oldid=811642601>. Also, it is not my job to find the reviews and secondary references for City of the Damned; you can find them yourself without effort. Considering that you have previously failed to WP:AGF and have accused me, against the evidence, of confusing primary and secondary sources when I did provide the latter, I don't owe you anything. Newimpartial (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, an artist's notability is most certainly separate from that of their work. The GNG is called "general" for a reason, it's not something that can be bypassed with clever interpretations of notability policy. If that is really the case then it would open up plenty of new cans of worms, like making game studios notable for making notable games, and then making the employees of that studio also notable for being part of the studio that made the notable game. It's simply unsustainable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That slippery slope argument, however, is quite unnecessary and irrelevant. Here we are only discussing the relationship between a (print) author and (reviewed, notable) books. Newimpartial (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a book is different than a game, or any other form of media, for the purposes of comparison. There are plenty of books with massive numbers of authors, like textbooks that are widely distributed. Saying "woah! this is off-limits to anything but print media!" is arbitrary._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the policy described in AUTHOR says that if an artist's work is notable then that artist is notable. You are then moving to the limit cases when a "massive number" of people are responsible for a work. Whatever the merits of those cases, they are not relevant here, where the game author/designer in question is sole author or one of two co-authors for two notable works. Newimpartial (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although Boz's point about the Washington Post article is correct. However, it's the only in-depth independent source that I can find on the author. Lot's of trivial mentions. Also concerning is the Wapo article was written 8 years ago, and nothing since? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Additional sources I've found with a quick correction to the apostrophes and spacing include [7], but also at least three separate sites noting that this particular author was recently banned from an industry convention based on harassment allegations. I will not link any of them here, as they are not high enough quality RS for a BLP issue, but you can find them through the basic web search, immediately above this comment. None of these sources appear to be in the article or addressed above in this AfD, which means that if the GNG was marginal before, it's certainly met now. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Yeah, he was notable before the the harassment allegations. The Washington Post article is of course the best source, but the Nightmare one looks okay. And Keith Baker does certainly count as expert in the field, so his blog is probably a weak RS. I'd have called him borderline other than that WP article. Hobit (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bite Submarines[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "53 restaurants seems reasonable for an article". I disagree, having an x-outlets is not seen as a criteria of notability in any policy or guideline I am familiar with. A company can have hundreds of outlets and still be totally non-notable. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One editor's "Yellow Pages company spam" is many others' "useful information about something you didn't know about before". The contention that "a company can have hundreds of outlets and still be totally non-notable" is bizzare as by that size there would be enough coverage to pass GNG unless a company was actively trying to avoid it. All that aside, while I can't read Norweigan a quick Google/gNews search turns up enough links about the company (including several titled newspaper articles) to indicate that this is, in fact, a Wikinotable company. (And somebody really needs to write the essay WP:Company articles are not automatically spam) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Opinions here are going to be purely subjective, but I think that a chain of restaurants of this size is definitely notable. I would suggest that such a chain in Britain or the United States wouldn't have a chance of being deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete size of the chain at 50 odd is irrelevant. what matters is coverage. 6 odd gnews hits doesn't meet GNG and WP:CORP when some of it looks routine. LibStar (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the amount of coverage is not enough to show notability for a company.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Something remarkable about the menu? No. Business model? No. Number of outlets? In Norway perhaps. A promotional means to get to the top of Google searches? Absolutely. Rhadow (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What has only being in Norway got to do with anything? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- despite all the cries of "but there must be sources out there somewhere" after three weeks it's still only sourced to the official website, and my own searches have come up with nothing useful either. I'm a bit surprised that a chain with 50+ restaurants wouldn't have coverage necessary for WP:N, but that seems to be the reality. Reyk _YO! 13:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage from Norwegian newspapers to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LakeView Asset Management[edit]

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

Article does not describe any reason company is notable and is very poorly written see Wikipedia:CORP Rusf10 (talk)

Delete -- walled garden with Scott Rothbort, a very thin BLP. Rothbort is a professor, so LakeView is a part-time job. Rhadow (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article text provides no indication that this particular wealth management firm is of encyclopaedic notability. Nor do its provided references, which are mentions of the company/its founder in media coverage of other topics. My searches are also finding more of the same, rather than substantial coverage of the company itself. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete nothing at all showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 07:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cell Signaling Technology[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and WP:GNG. Has not received significant coverage outside of press releases and routine announcements. Hirolovesswords (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a large biotech company and there are a lot of mentions online. What kind of coverage are you looking for? Natureium (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I don't understand why there are links to the company's website for different languages/countries when there only needs to be a link to the main version (especially since this is English Wikipedia), I do think the article is well written, meets most if not all WP:N, and has good references. I don't feel like there is a particular need for this article but it's here and there could be more information put online about this topic in the future.

Grapefruit17 (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article still have notability when I using an google search, I don't think it should be deleted in potentially. But some of the reference sources are link rot, need to be refill it. SA 13 Bro (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Natureium. Also, Google Scholar shows there are innumerable research papers where this company's products are specifically cited as a part of the research methods. — Gpc62 (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Page already deleted by Jinian under CSD:A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events) (non-admin closure) CThomas³ (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vikta JuiceBoy[edit]

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

Promotional bio of Non notable musician who fails WP:MUSICBIO and fails WP:GNG totally. A fair search shows nothing about him in reliable sources while mere look at the article will corroborate this. References are link to download his music, external links are collection of his Facebook and YouTube accounts; just narrowely missed CSD due to unreferenced claims of significance — Ammarpad (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable promo bio. reddogsix (talk) 03:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and self-promotional. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ASAP - promotional. Deb (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rand Wilson[edit]

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

This article has a *ton* of issues. References seem to only confirm the subject's place of employment, and many claims of what the subject has done ("In 1989 he helped coordinate solidarity efforts in Massachusetts during a successful three-month strike by 60,000 telephone workers against health care benefit cost-shifting," "As the founding director in the early 1990s, Wilson spearheaded efforts in Massachusetts to support legislation for universal health care and against international trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO)," and "While working for SEIU, he helped revive the Jobs with Justice Health Care Action Committee – pushing for coordinated actions by union members to link their struggles against cost shifting with the broader movement for health care reform" to list a few) are unsupported. The subject of the article actively edited this page up until earlier this year. None of this is up to snuff with wikipedia's standards, and the only verifiable claims made by citations are "Rand Wilson has worked several jobs." The subject was deemed Notable after a 2010 AfD, though any sourcing provided toward notability seems to have been removed or now lead to dead links. I've removed uncited claims after attempting to find sources that indicate Mr. Wilson was especially notable during the efforts listed and finding none. This page is heavily flawed and unnecessary, therefore I am nominating it for deletion. Jjgaybrams (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. There is just not enough to establish significant notability here. The page also reads too much like an accomplishment list, or a resume. Has had various cleanup and verification issues, and has been tagged as such since 2009 and 2010 respectively. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 22:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. "What links here" shows only two references to Wilson on the site, both to uncited claims, one edited by a now inactive user named RandWilson. This looks like a simple case of self-promotion. Pbruce1110 (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was boldly moved to Draft:Bo Lacy, where it must be improved (the sources provided by WikiOriginal-9 would likely be a good start), or will end up being deleted for abandonment. Subject probably meets the GNG, but that is not evident from the current state of the article. bd2412 T 13:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Lacy[edit]

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

Lacy played football for Arkansas and was all-conference at least once, but I can't find any national awards or any other significant coverage (there was the one time that he shoved a thong-wearing streaker). Was a sixth-round draft pick but never played in the NFL regular season. EricEnfermero (Talk) 19:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. Go here and then search for "Bo Lacy". WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Listing sources: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette ("From the ground up, Lacy knows hard work vital in football, just like farming", "Lacy no Andrews, but he's hardly a weak link", Newport Independent ("Lacy watches son go all the way to NFL", "Newport's Lacy bides time with Razorbacks", "Bo Lacy: The NFL is calling", "Bo goes pro / Lacy picked in sixth round of NFL draft", "Lacy works toward NFL; reflects on career with Hogs", "Lacy working for a spot on Steelers' final roster", "Newport's Lacy ready to make most of senior season", "Lacy pleased with first year in NFL", "Lacy released by Steelers; re-signed to Pittsburgh practice squad", "Balentine steals show once again Lacy expects big year for Razorbacks in 2003", "Lacy shines in Hogs' debut", "Lacy released by Browns", "Lacy signs with Bears", "Lacy to play in Senior Bowl", "Newport's Lacy signs with Pittsburgh"), The Northwest Arkansas Times ("To protect and serve, Lacy working to secure Hog QB's blind side", "Lacy's labor paying big dividends for UA's offensive line", "Lacy's 83 snaps prove big for Razorbacks", "Lacy wishing for perfect weekend as football season begins", "Lacy a late addition to Senior Bowl game"), The Jonesboro Sun ("Lacy fills Steelers' draft need"), The Repository ("Browns’ new Bo knows Pittsburgh"), Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ("Steelers sign Lacy"), Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ("ARKANSAS' 'OTHER' TACKLE, PAYS STEELERS DRAFT VISIT") WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet sports specuific notability requirements, which is what needs to be meant when we are dealing with someone who is notable for a sport. Routine coverage just is not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The first sentence is a misunderstanding of our specific notability guidelines. These do not override the general notability guideline GNG. But if all the coverage is routine then this would not meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "did not appear in an NFL regular season game" is a fail of the sport-specific notability guideline, and there's nothing better there. Wikipedia is not a directory. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A subject could still pass GNG. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sport-specific notability guidelines are secondary to WP:GNG. It doesn't matter whether he played in an NFL game if he's already notable, and he is, per the info provided by WikiOriginal-9 Jacona (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Mushtaq[edit]

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

promotional bio created by a SPA.. no in depth coverage on the subject. Saqib (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like this was originally an AfC page, but after a decline the author just moved it on his own to mainspace. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it was later accepted by the person who declined it initially. Though what you said do happen. — Ammarpad (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly promotional. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is not unlike others in the category of Pakistani educational theorists. I sort of understand the promotional argument but it is like if you don't say something bad about a person then it is wrong and I don't think that is what this is all about.--BelBivDov (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. Clearly promotional as well, such content is specifically excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the notability guidelines for educationalists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ekti Ghrinyo Golpo[edit]

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

This is a short story with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The sourcing in the article consist of primary sources and twitter, facebook and IMDB which are not reliable source. Whpq (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a very popular story written by Suman Sen. It also has been adapted to a short film, will release this year. Taniya94 (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What significant independent coverage of this in reliable sources can you provide to support notability? Being adapted into a short film is not evidence of notability by itself. -- Whpq (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Criteria, no. 3!! Short film is also a kind of motion picture I think.~~ Taniya94 (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That criteria specifically states "considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture". So the short film is yet to be made so it does not qualify as a "notable or significant motion picture" nor is this covered by any reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Several secondary sources added. see: https://www.sobdermichil.com/2017/11/ssb.html , the last line says, "Suman Sen's Ekti Ghrinyo Golpo has became popular among readers."~~ Taniya94 (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not independent, nor significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Yes it is independent. It is a popular news and magazine publisher from Siliguri.~~ Taniya94 (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was one of the publishers of the story, so it is not independent. -- Whpq (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Article about the film Accident, http://www.ekabinsha.org/entertainment-movies/%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%A8-%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0-%E0%A6%AA%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%9A%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B2%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BE%E0%A7%9F-%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%A4/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taniya94 (talk • contribs)
  - Again, an article from a publisher of the story. -- Whpq (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~Yes it is one of the publishers of Ekti Ghrinyo Golpo, but it has no relation with the film Accident.~~ Taniya94 (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep - You can see the entry of this story at Goodreads (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36479077-ekti-ghrinyo-golpo). Sathi.Mondal (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Good Reads is not a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should Keep this. I am from West Bengal and Suman Sen is indeed a notable name. His book Koto Bhoot! Ki Adbhut! is coming out this November from Barnik Prakashon. 103.75.161.34 (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is not about Sumon Sen so whether he is notable or not has little bearing on the notability of this short story. That he as a book coming out soon also has no bearing on notability for this story. -- Whpq (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Suman Sen he is. btw see - Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Criteria, no.5~~ Taniya94 (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Point 5 is doesn't apply. It requires that "the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study." Sumon Sen's body of work appears to be approximately 2 and the amount of academic study of his life and works is exactly zero. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This could use additional participation from Bengali speakers or any neutral parties.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep - There is enough sources to believe it reliable.~~ Sumit997 (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC) — Sumit997 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- What specific reliable sources are you referring too? Because there aren't any so far that qualify as independent and reliable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per outcome of deletion review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete literally reproducing the short story in a blog, literary magazine or commercial magazine, per the references, is not secondary independent coverage of this story. Secondary independent coverage is commentary about the story in reliable sources per Wikipedia guidelines. Good Reads is user generated commentary and is not independent secondary coverage. Any opinion or mention there is as good as my opinion of the story here. This short story does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability(books)_Criteria #5, #3, or any of the other criteria. No demonstration of reliable coverage by other media and not shown to be a historically significant author. I would prefer other editors stop making mistaken claims about the criteria this story satisfies - it is a non-notable short story. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Post the deletion review, I've assessed the sources available. There's no particular strength in this article's notability claim. Lourdes 06:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete largely per the comments at the deletion review by at least one native speaker of the language this short story was written in, demonstrating a very convincing lack of notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because no notability has been demonstrated. References were from the author's Facebook and Twitter and from the publishing outfits, so they were not independent. No independent proof of notability per Wikipedia standards were demonstrated. The article author appears to have a conflict of interest, and the participants in this discussion that provided "keep" votes above are currently under a sockpuppet investigation. –– Latreia (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Per my DRV comment.Also per Steve, Lourdes and Latreia.Winged Blades^Godric 10:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isa ali pantami[edit]

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

Self promotional article... inappropriate as per WP:COI and WP:RESUME Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. I am quite surprised my Speedy tag was removed. It's obviously self promotion with no evidence for notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to have evidence for notability to pass CSD-A7, just any assertion of significance which is in any way plausible. In this case a number of claims for significance have been made, some of which are marginally credible. Deletion for lack of notability is a higher standard than speedy deletion, requires some discussion and is more final than can be achieved through speedy deletion.Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: blatantly promotional article. Wikipedia is not a CV database. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: Might be notable, but the present state of the article is not allowed on Wikipedia. Article creator should use WP:Article for Creation and remember to always add references. There is a strong claim of significance, but the COI editor didn't add any reference so I think it pass for speedy deletion. Poorly written BLP article. Darreg (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~The subject is notable but the article was made in unrescuable shape. I tried to rewrite it but that will means making it anew entirely — Ammarpad (talk) 08:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Changed mind, because the article has been greatly improved by user below me and others, it is no longer in its former shape. — Ammarpad (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the current article is a dire example of the “CV” trend on Wikipedia (this in not LinkedIn). However, the actual topic does seem to pass our notability criteria. But who can summon the energy to completely rewrite the article? Mais oui! (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried that, but to be sincere it dawned on me that will mean complete rewrite and cannot be done in hurry. Small reorganizing cannot convince people to change their !vote here before this AfD closes. The article content and tone is clearly strange and largely unwanted. — Ammarpad (talk) 10:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To make it simple, for a COI editor, I will say NO. Darreg (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the subject does not come anywhere near meeting WP:NACADEMIC. As head of the organisation he works for... I'm not sure the organisation itself meets WP:ORG. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The organization is national government agency and already has stub National Information Technology Development Agency, just the way this article is crafted makes reorganizing it more tedious than writing new, that is why no need to contest anything especially if one has no available free time. Even me when I saw it I think it can be CSD'd, as it is obvious there's smack of WP:PROMOTION and possible copyvio. — Ammarpad (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I've trimmed down the article, reducing it to a two-sentence stub that only documents his position at the government IT agency. For other possible claims to notability, please refer to the article's history. – Uanfala 21:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article is much improved (thanks, Uanfala!) but I couldn't find sources other than about how he's taking over NITDA and (from government propaganda sources) how amazingly wonderful he will make it be. So while there's enough coverage, it still fails WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am working on the article. Please, check, and let me know if it meets WP:NN. BTW, WP:COI and WP:RESUME are not even deletion criteria. Can someone tell me, under which policy/guideline we should be deleting this? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 20:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Update I have done what I could. He looks like a marginally notable academic/civil servant/cleric/author. If kept, the article will need a properly capped title, and the infobox will need some work. Ping me, and I will do that job. Thanks Catfish Jim for all the editing, writing on something I have no clue of I really needed someone to lend hand. You are the best. Also thanks Uanfala, for advice, and Kendall-K1 for edits. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Aditya has done a fine job in knocking this into shape. My opinion has not changed re WP:NACADEMIC, but he just about scrapes it as per WP:GNG, which is arguably the more important test. I still have some concerns about the level of hyperbole in the article... I imagine that some of the awards that are listed are of limited significance. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep per Catfish Jim ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cleanup. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss recent improvements to the article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patar knight, the "recent" improvements were made by Aditya Kabir over ten days ago and subsequent to that several editors, including the nominator, have changed their !votes. I'm not sure I see the need for relisting here. – Uanfala 01:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I relisted mainly because after looking at many of the added sources, a lot of the coverage of Pantami seems to be name drops, passing mentions, and short pieces. This may not be sufficient to meet WP:BASIC in the eyes of the delete !voters, and it would be unfair to assume their position has changed merely based on how other delete !voters responded. Also the nominator's new !vote was only a "weak keep", endorsed by another user's "weak keep", and it admitted that the article was still a borderline pass on GNG even after the changes. So it seems reasonable to think that some other users might think this is still insufficient. I agree that it's trending towards a keep result, but I think another relist would allow a clearer consensus to form, and it can always be closed before a week if the trend continues.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After all the improvements, I still am not sure if this passes notability (though I would not worry about passing mentions, as there are hundreds of articles that covers him, and many more interviews of him). The claims to fame do not look as solid as I would like them to be (though he certainly is no more a one-hit-wonder). The media hyperbole is also suspect (besides I can't read Hausa or Fulani, and have no idea of reliability of Nigerian media). That is the reason I am waiting anxiously to see which way the wind blows as far as this discussion goes. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak Delete--Fails GNG/ NACADEMIC but manages to brush very close to the borderline.All that I see are passing trivial memtions in a large number of sources that covers NITDA rather than Pantami.Some sources seem too hyperbolic and/or too promotional to be non-paid non-promo-spam.But, checking whether they meet RS criterion or not were plainly difficult.The recieved awards (awarded by newsgroups, corps etc.) are crap and as such adds zero notability.The improvements by Aditya were great but it has not sadly altered the coefficient of notability for me to a great extent.Also, media penetration in Nigeria is fairly great and there is no scope of laxities based on systemic bias et al.Winged Blades^Godric 03:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Godric I agree with you that the media coverage in Nigeria has been fairly good since the 2010s, but it depends on the profession. NITDA are more of a scholarly governmental body. Nigerian media houses are not interested in such, because it will not drive traffic to their web portal. Darreg (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Please per WP:REDACT it is not appropriate for you to heavily redact your comment after someone has already replied to it. Now you made his replies to look contextles. Please use ^[corrected]]] or ~~strike~~ to let readers and closer peruse every thought. I suggest you restore it and strike. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- From where I stand, it doesn't fail WP:GNG at all, as the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which also covers WP:BASIC. But, yes, it bitterly fails WP:NACADEMIC, though you may consider that he is not just an academic. But, it is interesting that the first fresh !vote in a longtime is a straight Delete. Anxious to find what eventually will happen. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - In AfDs everywhere people will say WP:GNG supersedes WP:SNGs and that's the truth. Now you admit he does meet GNG, so it doesn't matter whether 1 or 10 new fresh !votes say delete, delete, delete especially vague non policy based delete !vote of "delete fails GNG" without showing how they failed it. I disagree with your statement "...bitterly fails WP:NACADEMIC": because it is mutually exclusive to your prior statement, both cannot be true at the same time. furthermore he is not only Academic, (which you admit too) he's not even well known in that field but he received wider coverage for his religious activities and now current job. Second; still from WP:NACADEMIC "...the person has held the post of president or chancellor (or vice-chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute...". This quote further shows why your " bitterly fails" is not correct. He is currently director of notable government agency National Information Technology Development Agency. I initially supported deleting this article not because I am afraid she'll not meet Wikipedia notability but because it t was in this shoddy shape and I said this upfront since day 1. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - No issues. But, NACADEMIC is a more stringent set of requirements than GNG. "Bitterly" was a silly word to use. By the way, would you mind !voting again? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Duplicate !votes are disallowed.Winged Blades^Godric 17:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I will be probably pruning the article and it's sources in the coming days based on rel. of source, encyclopedicness etc. and re-evaluate the article.Winged Blades^Godric 17:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        You should have done that " pruning" and "re-evaluating" before this, perhaps you would've said something better. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for the unwanted advice.I could do without lessons from you about Afd participation.Cheers!Winged Blades^Godric 07:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aditya: I have already expressed my thought above early and later after your rescue efforts, I changed position. My reply to your comment is only to bring to light what policy/guideline actually say after I actually saw you give one non policy/guideline-based "delete!" big recognition. (You can reread your comment). So if this resulted in kept, your work and other editors surely will count, so I am not belittling it. Second, I actually know almost all SNGs are more stringent than GNG and I didn't say the opposite in my reply. I don't know whether you really understand me. There's big difference between my word " supersede" and (be more) "stringent". Thanks –Ammarpad (talk) 10:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. GNG should be the guideline to follow. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted this article deleted because it was created by a COI editor, but it has been rewritten from the scratch to an encyclopedic level by many experienced editors. Subject seem to marginally pass WP:NPOLITICIAN/WP:NACADEMIC as the head of NITDA. Changing to Keep. Darreg (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Goodman Fielder. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Bakers[edit]

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

catalog pagewith no encyclopedic information DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Goodman Fielder as per WP:ATD-M. I added sources to verify content, but may not be notable for a standalone article. Note that I added a merge template to the article and to the merge target article before this AfD discussion was initiated. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Goodman Fielder. This article is currently more like a list than an encyclopedia article; it could probably be merged. Vorbee (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect these information and reference sources to Goodman Fielder. SA 13 Bro (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. SunChaser (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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