Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 28 November 30 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. and moved to Draftify. The article is now located at Draft:Steve Babaeko. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Babaeko[edit]

Steve Babaeko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. References are mostly interviews. reddogsix (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thank you for opening this discussion. I am creating this profile because the subject is notable in the Nigerian advertising space. The cited interviews were necessary to offer clarity in the biography section. I am still working on the page to create more citations that better make the case for the subject's notability. I have a few already. Please do not rush to delete.Igwatala (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:54, 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. Jujutacular (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tohfat-ul-Awam[edit]

Tohfat-ul-Awam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no in-depth sourcing to show that this passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 23:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not seem to meet notability guidelines. There might be coverage in Urdu but I do not speak that language. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks adequate sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no actual compelling proof of existence, let alone of notability. Creating editor was blocked last year as a serial creator of articles that were subsequently deleted, and as a prolific uploader of unlicensed images that had to be deleted. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

::FYI - something seems buggy with the block notices. I just went to this article's creator's user page and the block notice is gone. I went to another user's page who I knew was just blocked for improperly moving a page and his notice is gone also. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC) Never mind - it was the contribs page, not the user page. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:54, 7 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rusf10 (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transporter reversal[edit]

Transporter reversal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page has no references. However, I admit I do not have enough knowledge of the subject to know if it merits an article and just needs to be improved. Rusf10 (talk) 22:36, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al Hallak[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Al Hallak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film director. Still no in-depth coverage could be found. This should be salted as well. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons I outlined at the earlier AfD. From memory, this present incarnation of the article has less information about the subject even than the earlier puff-piece had. Salting wouldn't be a bad idea, either. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The situation has not changed at all since earlier this year when this last came up for deletion discussion. He still has not made any significant work as a filmmaker, and his work has not as a whole contributed long term to the body of thought. Academics do not become notable for their thesis, generally not even if they rework it into a published book (which a great many do, at least in the field of history, with which I am most familiar with), and filmmakers do not generally become notable for their thesis either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he is a recognized filmmaker of the month by the D.C. Film Office, made major VR Sci-Fi perfect that was featured in the Huff Post. He served as a judge at major film festivals such as Washington West Film Festival.— JackSwan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The "major project" you mention doesn't seem to have an awful lot of coverage outside of the source provided, and being "filmmaker of the month" doesn't strike me as an overly major claim to notability - I was "employee of the month" a couple of times in my old job, but it doesn't earn me an article. Why not re-create the article once he is notable, rather than a few months after consensus had been that he isn't? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hallak has served as faculty member at the New York Film Academy in Los Angeles where he supervised thesis film projects at the MFA in Filmmaking Program. He served as a judge at a major film festival, giving him an honor as an industry professional and recognized filmmaker. His "Major Project" was featured on veer.tv as well.
Just a quick suggestion going forward: in AfD discussions, it's generally a good thing to "sign" your posts. Just type the "tilde" character (~) four times at the end of your comment, and it will include your name, a link to your Talk page and the time you left the comment. To respond to the substance of your comments - the featuring on Veer.TV looks more like just an upload to that particular site, much in the way that you or I could upload videos to YouTube or elsewhere if we wanted to. In relation to his position as an academic, he would need to meet one or more of the criteria here, unless he meets the general notability guideline. Simply being a faculty member doesn't get him anywhere near over the line, I'm afraid. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He was featured on Veer, meaning his project 'Project Gordon' was selected to be on the front page, just like Vimeo has staff picks. Not every faculty supervises final thesis projects of the MFA in filmmaking, those movies are screened at WB, that gives him credibility. CGBros normally doesn't feature any project, his Sci-Fi project 'The Paradigm' 2014 was featured on CGBros and several major sites, I believe that is a recognition for his quality of work. he was selected to judge a major film festival that is presented by Boeing. Maybe he doesn't have enough publicity, I agree, he should hire a manger or publicist, but that doesn't mean he should not be recognized for his work JackSwan (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a case of "how much publicity does he have?" It's a case of "is he notable?" If he's attracted multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the man himself, the answer to that second question is "yes", and he gets an article. In this instance, he doesn't seem to have done so as yet. I'm sure he's a terrific person, an up-and-coming talent and one to watch out for in the future. None of that equates to notability, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He was addressed directly and in detail in several articles and media. to find many articles, search his name along with any of his movie projects. Found in several forms and media sites and featured in other languages. Found in Multiple sources, IMDb, Huff Post, NYFA, AUS, CGBros .. and many media coverage that not affiliated with him. He has a significant coverage in reliable sources, he was a panelist at The Future of Film 2017 Conference at the University of Maryland at College Park JackSwan (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB, being user-editable, isn't usually the best source to refer to. I'd also question how independent NYFA would be, since he's a faculty member there as you've indicated. As far as the other sources go, I've searched and genuinely haven't found them. Could you provide a link or two? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the amount of work he did, he needed more publicity, he deserves it. here are few .. https://www.fof.media/alhallak, http://worldanimationfilmfestival.com/film-animation-news/cg/film-director-al-hallak-of-sci-fi-thriller-the-paradigm-hits-hollywood-by-storm/, https://www.ausalumni.ae/s/1467/17/interior.aspx?sid=1467&gid=1&pgid=252&cid=2673&ecid=2673&ciid=1695&crid=0, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HIKzMNOMhUJackSwan (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, let's leave the concept of "publicity" out of this. Wikipedia is emphatically not the place either to drum up publicity for someone or to rectify a lack of publicity in their careers. It's all about notability, as discussed above. To the sources you've linked: YouTube doesn't count at all, since it's capable of being uploaded-to by anyone. The FOF link indicates that Hallak is connected with this organisation. Well and good, although there's the open question of how notable the organisation is. It also conveniently indicates his resume, which is probably best described as "thin" at the moment (not a judgement on him, as I understand most films take quite some time to get filmed and released, even with all of Hollywood behind them). Does anything in this resume get him past WP:DIRECTOR? No. The WAFF link is two things, both of them concerning. Firstly, it opens with the statement that Hallak is "on the verge" of success. Admittedly, that dates from 2015, but the object of the exercise here is that he needs to already be notable, rather than requiring a Wikipedia bio to become so (it's a common misconception that things work the other way). Secondly, the link is to a press release from Hallak himself. Remember that one of the key planks of notability is that the sources need to be independent of the subject? That's not remotely independent. The Ausalumni link is also not independent, since it's a Q&A session with Hallak again. As we've discussed before, the point here is that Hallak (or anyone else) needs to have significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. He's a young up-and-comer in - from what I understand - an industry full of young up-and-comers. I'm sure you think very highly of him, but that doesn't mean he gets an article yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion but I disagree, I mean by "publicity" written articles about him and his work, Do you think If he has an article about his work on "Reuters" for example would make him notable? I would argue that he doesn't get the coverage he deserves. I agree that anyone can upload to YouTube, but just to clarify, those YouTube CHs are part of known sites such as http://www.joblo.com, they don't upload any video, think of staff pick on Vimeo. The Future of Film Conference is our annual platform, part of Creative Edge Collaborative https://creativeedgepg.wordpress.com sponsored by Maryland Film Office, they select industry experts for their annual panels at the University of Maryland. I would argue that he is not young and up-and-comer in, and his resume is not thin, how would someone "young up-and-comer in" can be a jury member at a festival sponsored by Boing, a panelist for a conference hosted by University of Maryland, an instructor supervising thises films at the MFA in Filmmaking screened at Warner Brothers in Los Angeles, I am not sure what evidence you are basing your judgment on. I disagree with the note that he is young and up-and-comer. JackSwan (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To address the points in the order in which you raised them. Would a Reuters article make him notable? In the abstract, impossible to say. Again, what makes a subject notable is the existence of multiple, non-trivial, independent and reliable sources. In principle, a Reuters article looking in-depth at his body of work would be all of those things but the first (for the simple reason that it would be one article only), but it would depend on the article. I couldn't give a blanket answer without seeing it. In terms of YouTube, it doesn't matter who or what was responsible for the upload, the fact remains that YouTube doesn't count as a source establishing notability, so we can move onto other topics. I used the terms "young up-and-comer" and "thin resume" to indicate that regardless of what he's done or not done, he doesn't pass either WP:DIRECTOR (for his filmmaking itself) or WP:NACADEMIC (for his faculty position). The evidence I'm basing my judgement on is in those notability guidelines. To consider DIRECTOR: Is Hallak "widely cited by peers or successors"? Not that anything I can see (or that you've provided) demonstrates. Has he "originate[d] a significant new concept, theory or technique"? No sign of that, and considering the longevity of his career to date, I'd say it's unlikely at best. Does he fit the very wordy third criterion there (playing a major role in creating/co-creating a significant body of work which has been analysed extensively, to paraphrase)? No evidence of that, and given the length of his career so far I can't work out how he could have done anyway. The fourth criterion applies more to visual artists, but again there's no evidence of Hallak's films being part of major exhibits in museums yet. The criteria in ACADEMIC basically boil down to a requirement for a much longer faculty career than he's yet had, so I won't waste time on them right now. In other words, he's (by his own words) "on the verge" of success, fame, fortune and everything else. Since he's not there yet, he hasn't attracted the coverage which would meet WP:GNG or the other criteria. Because he hasn't attracted that coverage, he doesn't meet those criteria. Because he doesn't meet the criteria, he isn't notable. Because he isn't notable, there's no reason for him to have an article at present. All of that is based in policies and guidelines to which I have linked you. You're welcome to disagree with those policies and guidelines, but unless and until those change, we all work within them. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your work and the work of the other judges, I am just saying my opinion, It is possible to at least say he is a filmmaker, because he is. I am sure he will have those requirements in the near future .. all the best. JackSwan (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete weighing this article on WP:DIRECTOR it failed all the four points. Plus, neither in my search nor in the article exist sources that shows significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Might be notable in the future as WP:TOOSOON may also apply here. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He was addressed directly and in detail in several articles and media. to find many articles, search his name along with any of his movie projects. Found in several forms and media sites and featured in other languages. Found in Multiple sources, IMDb, Huff Post, NYFA, AUS, CGBros .. and many media coverage that not affiliated with him. He has a significant coverage in reliable sources, he was a panelist at The Future of Film 2017 Conference at the University of Maryland at College Park. JackSwan (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sign of evidence of notability by Wikipedia's standards. The one editor saying "keep" uses reasons which have little, or in some cases nothing, to do with the notability guidelines, such as "I would argue that he doesn't get the coverage he deserves". Notability requires that there actually is coverage, not that someone who chooses to edit Wikipedia thinks that there should be. Breaking sticks (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your note, he has coverage, but it seems to Wikipedia that it's not enough, is there a number of articles that he should have in order to qualify, he has 4 listed already including MovieMaker and Huff Post. If everyone thinks it should be deleted, then let it be, I will keep following his movie projects and events and write again about him in the near future, I truly believe he deserves a page in the future, he is brilliant. JackSwan (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please don't "write about him in the near future" until he meets the criteria we've talked about above. That's a sure-fire way to attract administrative sanction and make it harder for an article to be written about him if and when he achieves notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I won't write about him until he meets the criteria, It is possible to at least say he is a filmmaker, is anyone can edit the page to reflect on his achievements. I guess sooner or later he will be covered enough in the media to have a page edited by someone. Thanks, all the best. JackSwan (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 6 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) 21:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dermala[edit]

Dermala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No substantial coverage outside of WP:SPIP, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Rentier (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. obvious PROMO. it is kind of pitiful that they have to say the same thing three times just to fill out a stubby article. I think we get it that they are a microbiome company focused on skin. Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 6 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) 21:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debi Makhsoospuri[edit]

Debi Makhsoospuri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The award he won is a minor category in a regional award. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON (but since the subject is 51 now, maybe not). Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Punjabi Music Awards are not in the rarefied tier of music awards that are notable enough to constitute a pass of NMUSIC #8 — merely calling them "the Punjabi Grammy Awards" in an otherwise abysmally sourced article doesn't make them equivalent to the Grammy Awards, because the notability of a music award is determined by the extent to which it can or cannot be reliably sourced as the subject of enough media coverage to clear GNG (of which its article shows none at all.) As for this article, no other notability claim is being made here at all, and no evidence of reliable source coverage about him is being shown. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems popular in India. His Facebook page got nearly a million likes. St0n3 BG (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @St0n3 BG: I don't see a category for that in either GNG or MUSICBIO. Could you show me where that's a criterion for keeping a subject or for notability? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not seem to meet notability guidelines. There may exist sufficient coverage in the Punjabi language but I do not speak that language. Looking at the Punjabi version of this article, it includes only two sources, one of which (5abimusic.com) is listed as a deceptive site and the other (punjabspider.com) is the 5,455,534th most popular site in the world according to Alexa. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:38, 5 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) 20:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Research Building[edit]

Engineering Research Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nondescript university building. No indications of notability, implied or otherwise. Deserving of a paragraph in the universities article. Kleuske (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't redirect. Because though the building deserves mention on Wikipedia but no content enough for whole standalone article WP:NOPAGE. No WP:SIGCOV about it to warrant that. I also are with the thought above that redirect is not appropriate here due to the genericity of the name. So new section in the main article is more appropriate thing here. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:35, 6 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting of European Communist Youth Organizations[edit]

Meeting of European Communist Youth Organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references that suggest that this annual meeting of representatives from various youth organizations is notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Power tagged it for speedy, but I declined it for a couple of reasons. (1) As a multinational event, it's more likely to get coverage both because it's relevant to more publication markets and because multinational events, even small ones like this, tend to be more interesting and get more coverage. (2) Most of the participating organisations have articles. A meeting of twenty-ish notable organisations is more likely to be notable itself: if the constituents get coverage individually, their meetings are also more likely to get coverage. Neither of these is reason to vote "keep", so I'll not vote here; I just thought an explanation would help. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Cannot find an assertion of notability, at least with English sources. !dave 18:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:22, 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. – Joe (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creationsofla[edit]

Creationsofla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the notability criteria of WP:CREATIVE. Sources are credits for photos published in magazines, the subject of the article is a contributor to the sources, not the subject. IOW: you're notable if Vogue writes about you, but not if Vogue publishes a photo that you took. Mduvekot (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 17:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:49, 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. – Joe (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Williams (baseball)[edit]

Dan Williams (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is actually the second nomination. The first was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Williams in 2007, when the article was kept for what I believe was a flimsy rationale.

The subject does not meet WP:BASE/N or WP:GNG, as the subject has never played in the Major Leagues or any major professional league outside North America, and his role with the Indians was as a bullpen catcher, not an official coach.

It's telling that of the two sources that are meant to establish his notability, this one about the firing of the coaching staff doesn't even mention Williams, and the article suffers from neglect. Ytoyoda (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 17:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 17:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Our consensus about bullpen catchers has changed in the last 10 years. They are not considered coaches according to the rules MLB uses that dictate how many in uniform coaches a team can have. They are not included in the BASE/N presumption of notability granted to coaches, because most of them don't have sources to establish GNG. This individual is no different in that way. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet notability guidelines, at least from what's seen here. If there's something else about him that can be dredged up, I'm fine with re-creating the article. I just have a hunch there's probably something out there, but I couldn't find anything. South Nashua (talk) 21:13, 4 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. – Joe (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Leeds[edit]

Adrian Leeds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not much in the way of reliable sources, reads like a promotional piece. MrBill3 (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 17:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 17:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 17:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lack of third party coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No RS, lots of OR, etc. Created by SPA with no edits outside this article. Likely vanity. Agricola44 (talk) 17:48, 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. – Joe (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzad Ashfaq[edit]

Shahzad Ashfaq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability criteria of WP:N or WP:BIO. References given are passing mentions, directory entries, or standard business announcements. I can't find third-party reliable sources that discuss him in any depth. ... discospinster talk 14:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 6 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 keep. WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB)[edit]

Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This looks to me like a n unremarkable business; references are about the projects it has worked on or routine covereage TheLongTone (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,TheLongTone. Revised the article for notability clarity. Added Wall Street Journal, Seattle Times, and Denver Business Journal references. Would argue most notable press coverage is firm's generation of Crane Index as it is widely referenced in business news as key barometer of economic vitality via new construction metrics. Vincent Wedge (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I buy that; withdrawing nomination.TheLongTone (talk) 15:40, 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. – Joe (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panoz Avezzano[edit]

Panoz Avezzano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speculation about not yet created car, WP:CRYSTAL, lacks independent reportage in reliables sources to nmeet general notability guideline except rumours, lies and speculation of soorts blogs and fans WP:TOOSOON and serving as advert to future product–Ammarpad (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete Fails GNG and what I would consider notability for an unreleased unvehicle. TOOSOON. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
per bushranger L3X1 (distænt write) 16:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 02:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As per artofgears.com, it has been more than a year since, "Sep 29, 2016 ... At an event at the Panoz museum in Braselton Georgia, Panoz took the wrap off its newest design."  The car was being raced by 30 March 2017.  WP:BEFORE D1 on Google web doesn't require reading to verify existence, as there is a line of four "Images of Panoz Avezzano".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  I did WP:BEFORE D1, and also checked Google Images.  Nothing more is needed.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:04, 4 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. – Joe (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of educational institutions in Quetta District[edit]

List of educational institutions in Quetta District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a directory. List of all notable or non-notable educational institutions in a city, does not serve the purpose of an encyclopedia. Notable institutions are already listed at Quetta#Education. Hitro talk 12:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 17:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This list could be a useful compromise especially in the current deletionist climate. if the schools can be sourced to be verifiable and exist, then there is no reason to delete this. Please consider this as a compromise.Egaoblai (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - lists are for navigation not for indiscriminate collection of information. Störm (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because this needless and indiscriminate duplication, it already exist here and possibly also in category, and they don't contain any special content, nor is the list large enough to merit standalone page. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 6 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 keep. 1.02 editor, please familiarise yourself with the deletion policy before making further nominations. – Joe (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kochuveli - Mangaluru Jn Antyodaya Express[edit]

Kochuveli - Mangaluru Jn Antyodaya Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating this not only as it barely has any content (only 1k bytes+), but the notability and usage is rock bottom, with only 5 edits (not including the addition of the afd) it has only 56 page views including mine, furthermore it only has 2 links to it, which suggests a Low notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.02 editor (talk • contribs) 11:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding on to the first, a Google news search threw up a paragraphed timetable which the Service section in the article was mostly (but not completely) copied from.-1.02 editor (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. WP:ASZ, WP:ORPHS, WP:NOBODYREADSIT. Article size is not a reason for deletion. Neither is a lack of incoming links, nor a low number of hits. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of invalid reason for deletion; see valid reasons here. Although article view shows significance of a subject it doesn't show it's notability. Article size is another wrong reason. see why. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep NPASR  This should have been closed days ago.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:08, 5 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. – Joe (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons: Tapped Out - Themed Updates[edit]

The Simpsons: Tapped Out - Themed Updates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Creating a new page for deleted content is not acceptable. The page creator has stated that the history of the game is useful for long-term players, but this is not a fan site and I do not believe that the updates to this game meet our standards for notability. Rcsprinter123 (gab) 11:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unilaterally deleting content without discussion which has been built up on this page over 4 years is unacceptable.

    Taking the argument about not being a fan site to its logical conclusion would mean that only a bare minimum of information should be provided for any topic eg TV series, and any information about individual episodes, should be deleted for all such topics. I don't find this acceptable in either case. JohnI (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    We have some guidelines and policies you should probably read, including WP:VGSCOPE and the general notability guideline. While I think this material might (that's a caution "might") be okay for the article on the video game, it should be sourced to independent, secondary, reliable sources. Do you have such? It is almost-certainly not appropriate for its own article regardless. --Izno (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This kind of info belongs on Wikia rather than Wikipedia. I don't see how this compares with, say, a plot summary of the work in question. It's entirely just cruft that is solely relevant to fans or players.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how it violates NOTDIR. Routine updates sometimes receive coverage in RS sufficient to indicate inclusion in the article on the video game itself. --Izno (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's not appropriate to take WP:GAMECRUFT removed from an article, and instead make it its own stand-alone article. We don't usually track every single update to a game, per WP:NOTCHANGELOG (point #4). That's not what encyclopedias do. If one wanted to add a section to the parent article about substantial/notable updates that received coverage by third party sources ( ie your IGNs, Eurogamers, etc. writing article about how good/bad the Halloween 2016 update was.) it could be included in the main article. But listing every update, in a stand-alone article or the game's article, should not happen. Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. This is excessive, unnecessary, and almost entirely unsourced. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:31, 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. – Joe (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fred's House[edit]

Fred's House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unsigned band with little media coverage beyond mention as a support band and a couple of reviews. The fact that the article was created by a SPA (now perma-blocked) which shares the band's name doesn't help. Quite simply, fails WP:MUSICBIO. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have just browsed the refs in the article and they don't pass GNG or NMusic. A number of the refs support their single "Fine life" which on their official channel on Youtube has 90 views. Szzuk (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG, NMUSIC, the SPA/COI concerns also weigh in for deletion. South Nashua (talk) 21:24, 4 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 09:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Express-Historie[edit]

Berlin Express-Historie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little evidence of notability. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG, and can't see how it meets WP:NBOOK. Onel5969 TT me 17:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a notable book; the NYTimes reference in the article doesn't appear to mention the book or the author. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:35, 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 keep. Consensus to keep following relisting. Good to see collaborative editing working as Jimbo intended. The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Gary Callier[edit]

Debbie Gary Callier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: Questionable notability threshold as flyer or aviatrix. Quis separabit? 05:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not see how she meets the notability standard at this time. gidonb (talk) 05:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC) Keep per WP:GNG after Megalibrarygirl got the sources out from behind a paywall. Awesome job, Megalibrarygirl! gidonb (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found a lot of great articles about her career over time and in depth. I've added them to the article. She passes GNG. I'm going to @Gidonb: to look at the new information which was all behind a paywall (you can see it now via Newspapers.com). Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per additional sources found by MLG. Onel5969 TT me 17:36, 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. Sandstein 09:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taziki's Mediterranean Café[edit]

Taziki's Mediterranean Café (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Indiscriminately promotional local news columns about local interests about the company such as location openings, listings or community stories or then republished public relations on the company's behalf. The concern here is WP:Not promotion and WP:Not advocate, basic policies and, if we removed half of this article's promotion contents sections 2-4), there wouldn't be anything significant beyond a general corporate profile. WP's goal here is to be independent of public relations or servicing them, not endorsing it. SwisterTwister talk 00:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is notable? Sales per store? No. Cuisine? Not that I read. The founders? No. Philanthropy? It fills the references list. We rejected that for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva (4th nomination). Just because a business exists does not make it notable. Gravel exists. Every quarry does not get an article. Owners of businesses want a WP entry because it puts them at the top of a Google search. That is not a reason to fill WP with lots of promotional articles. Rhadow (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ali Baba is about half the size, and apparently has much fewer available sources (the lack of a unique name hinders the search, so it's hard to say for sure). The Nextiva article was kept, so who is the "we" in the phrase "we rejected that"? Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Check out WP:OTHERSTUFF. North America1000 17:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Now tagged for copyedit for removal of promotional material. Keep until copyedited by the WP:GOCE and then review for keeping or deleting.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I searched Google news for "Taziki's" and found over 2,000 news articles. These places seem to be everywhere in the Southeastern United States, and spreading like a plague. The article is very outdated and needs improvement, but that's not a reason to delete. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Improve the article before rushing to delete it.Egaoblai (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It can be hard to sort out the wheat from the chaff when sourcing these things, but there seems to be just enoguh here to indicate notability is sufficient. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NCOMPANY = WP:CORPSPAM. Best sources are local news, rest is PR-level stuff. Mid-sized company that is not notable. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, people. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As what Piotrus stated, the sources are local and don't attribute much notability factor to them. Many trivial PRs that don't contribute whatsoever. FiendYT ★
  • Delete the quality of the sourcing is particularly low, consisting of trade notices, notices of store openings and in some cases self-published material from the store website. Refs do not establish notability.198.58.171.47 (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a review of available sources. Some of the available sources come across as routine as per their headline titles, but several provide a comprehensive overview of the company. North America1000 00:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no compromising in any advertising and we shouldn't let this one pass because of special interests. Deletion is based in policy, not interests. Trampton (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. essentially promotional , so it violates NOT ADVERTISING, one of our fundamental policies. I do not know whether or not it's really notable, but it doesn't matter. notability is secondary to basic policy. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, any PROMO problems can be edited out, but sources exist. If SwisterTwister will leave her office address here, I'll phone in a lunch order for a lamb gyro. Guaranteed to change her mind.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sources The Birmingham News: What's next for Taziki's? New restaurants, menu changes and the man behind the Birmingham-based chain (photos), Alabama-based Taziki's Mediterranean Cafe opening first Mobile location; How to Cook Up a $28 Million Franchise; Chattanooga Times Free Press: Taziki's Mediterranean Cafe's branches out; new restaurants planned in Chattanooga; The Tennessean Fresh Hospitality grows restaurant empire]. Coverage happens every time they move into a new area. In addition to the enormous number of routine local stories typified by this [11] search on Atlanta Journal Constitution. Material exists from which a good article can be created.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources analysis:
  • 1 above is a local news article
  • 2 is a republished business announcement
  • 3 is a store opening in the same publication
  • 4 is the same place, but different newspaper but an announcement one and the same and the same details down to the number
  • 5 is yet another company announcement about an opening
  • 6 is an announcement about the company operations and expanding their business, through a local newspaper. And so, to quote WP:ORGIND: [Sources except]: press releases, press kits, or similar works; any material which is substantially based on a press release; any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it; advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization; other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. Next, with that, we have WP:Deletion policy that says pages that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Wikipedia. If a guideline can clearly outline the unacceptable contents of an article, and a policy shows that deletion is allowed in such cases for the sake of removing promotion, then it's a basic policy and WP:5P.

Also, speaking of WP:5P, no one has rebuttal or proposed a solution for the company account, Tazikimarketingintern that changed the article and inserted repeated promotions. This is an immediate violation of our WP:Paid Terms of Use. SwisterTwister talk 16:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fact check that Sources analysis:
  • A reminder that a signed article in a major big-city or regional daily like The Florida Times-Union, the Birmingham News, or The Tennessean is a rs and does support notability - even for a restaurant with a branch in the paper's region - albeit not as strongly as coverage in a national publication would do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear promo article, reads just like an advertising brochure. Add to that questionable notability, and it should be deleted. Onel5969 TT me 17:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia readers want to read this article. It is third among the 16 articles in Category:Greek restaurants, just above the Greek restaurant article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The WP:PROMO argument is unconvincing. Once page is not G11 that means it can be cleaned up. Also more sources from French version here and here –Ammarpad (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:HEY, Northamerica1000 and I removed hype (no objection to anyone who wants to do so removing any overt ADVERT they find). I replaced primary sources with news articles. Article is now sourced to signed articles in real newspapers. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've tsken s hard look here and I don't see any WP:Deletion policy rationsle here for keeping, ehuch is key here. WP:Deletion policy#14 clearly says "any other content not suitable for sn encyclopedia". What I saw thr latest and earlier Keep votes say that either they liked it or theu thought it was a fun article. None of that matters in an encyclopedia and that's why thousands od other websites glsdly accept anything. I would weigh this in differently if the Keep votes showed why an article heavily edited by an undisclosed company editor without the necessary disclosure should be kept, since that'a basic policy (Terms of Use). If we cannot be expected to follow that in a responsiible manner for WP, or let alone WP:Deletion policy, we're not taking charge of what matters and what started Wikipedia in the first place: A website free of advertising and promotion. Trampton (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ,,, What's the big deal with an average business advert? Business adverts don't give us any value and the important value here is a free and neutral encyclopedia. I do agree with Piotrus and FiendYT, local sources on a local business, local attention is not encyclopedia attention. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - careful reading of the sources doesn't quite give the notability that might have been suggested above. Sure, some of the sources are reliable and have large circulations, but nothing here convinces me that the articles aren't publicity exercise - they appear to be interviews given and press releases rehashed. I am not convinced. This seems to me like clever marketing by getting some of the bigger papers on board. Nowhere is it discussed independently of the quote or the throwaway promo line. Very clever, but not very notable.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per others above due to lack of notability. A plethora of sources alone does not notable make. In addition, this appears quite obviously to have all the hallmarks of a commissioned work so the patrollers were correct to pick it out. Whether it is or not is another issue and I'm not pointing any fingers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could meet the GNG within a month if I tried and these sources were all that were required to establish notability. No, the local coverage is all but useless and we only count it towards notability when one or two people make a fuss over it enough to cause a no consensus result. The overwhelming amount of AfD discussions on the English Wikipedia do not count local coverage as establishing notability, and I see no reason why we should make an exception here. None of these sources are from major papers, despite what is claimed, and for commercial enterprises we tend to require significantly more coverage than this. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I could meet the GNG within a month if I tried and these sources were all that were required to establish notability." - In which case you'd have an article written and all would be well. Yes, we need not to have promotion. But I don't understand why we should require more coverage for a 'commercial enterprise' than a person, or for anything else. Whatever happened to 'the repository of all human knowledge'? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • We became the 5th most viewed website in the world and realized that we had to raise our standards if we wanted people to take us seriously. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:04, 6 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. Sandstein 09:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maslach Burnout Inventory[edit]

Maslach Burnout Inventory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article only refers to the website affiliated with the creators of the theory; written by a declared COI editor; no confirmation that the theory has been independently supported. Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added references to independent support of theory and instrument. Issa 23:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Issa at Mind Garden (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:09, 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 09:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A2z(Interactive); Ltd[edit]

A2z(Interactive); Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to just be an attempt at self promotion as "studio" has little notability. Only received minor mentions in the references, not all of which are reliable sources. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON and notability. Only a single redlinked title is not a good indication this studio will be around at a later date. --Izno (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Company has yet to release its first product, which itself is not yet notable. We don't have an article for every group of people who have a successful Kickstarter. Sergecross73 msg me 18:18, 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 09:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea McEachran[edit]

Chelsea McEachran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod replaced with malformed AfD for some reason. Initial concerns still valid. Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:56, 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, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Plummer (politician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jason Plummer (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't quite seem to meet WP:GNG yet. Different article than in 2012, which was a different article than in 2010, and was WP:SALTed for a while in 2011. (Might be worth mentioning that Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure has become part of the Wikimedia terms of service since the last time this article was re-created — just in case that's a factor, which I don't know yet.) Closeapple (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In cases where a politician has unsuccessfully/not yet successfully run in multiple elections, which should we redirect to? - The Bushranger One ping only 13:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hey guys, I just read this article. I rewrote some content in the opening paragraph to see if we can establish why this guy should be notable. Here's what I wrote: "“He is best known for being Bill Brady’s gubernatorial running mate in 2010, narrowly losing to Pat Quinn, after the infamous case of Gov. Rod Blagojevich attempting to sell Barack Obama's Senate seat.” I think someone running on a gubernatorial ticket following the resignation/criminal conviction of a sitting governor is pretty darn notable. What do other people think about my take on this? Thanks! --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a non-winning candidate for lieutenant governor is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts a person from having to be better-sourced than this — the base election coverage focuses primarily on the top of the ticket, and far, far less on the #2, so the case for deeming the lieutenant governor candidate "inherently" notable is far weaker than the case for the governor candidate. (And even then, a gubernatorial candidate still doesn't actually get an automatic inclusion freebie just for the fact of being a candidate either — he's just likelier to have enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG, but still isn't guaranteed an article if he doesn't.) But there isn't a GNG-passing volume or quality of sourcing being shown here: of the seven footnotes, two are raw tables of the election results themselves (valid for verifying that detail if the article has already cleared GNG, but not a bringer of GNG in and of itself), and two are to an industry trade magazine, not a widely distributed general interest source — leaving us with just three sources that actually constitute media coverage, of which two are to the same small-town radio station and all three are in the context of his candidacies themselves. But every candidate in any election anywhere could always show three sources about that, so that's not in and of itself enough coverage to make his candidacy more notable than the norm. As for the Bushranger's question, if there are multiple possible redirect targets, then WP:XY says we shouldn't redirect at all — if a reader actually searches for him, all of the pages with his name in them will come up in the list of results anyway, so not having a redirect would not prevent anybody from finding the articles. Bearcat (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable politicval candidate. I admit to merely having read the page and looked at sources there. If someone locaget WP:INDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV of his career, such as articles tat explore a major achievement or controversy that received major attention, or that had a major impact of some sort, feel free to ping me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete canddiates for governor are not default notable, and the coverage does not rise above routine. If Plummer is elected to the state senate next year, as he is seeking to be, he will be notable. But that will not occur until next November, and we do not keep articles on candidates just because they might win.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 4 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) 09:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delwar Jahid[edit]

Delwar Jahid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject shows no sign of notability or any claims to notability. Many of the sources used are self referenced and/or offline. None of the sources seem to demonstrate notability. He is the president of Bangladesh Heritage and Ethnic Society of Alberta, which has added a few spammy content in wikipedia most of which has been removed. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:19, 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 speedy delete. G4. Furthermore, as this editor has moved multiple declined AfCs to articlespace, I've given them an Only Warning. The Bushranger One ping only 13:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Walking Dick[edit]

The Walking Dick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The creator keeps moving the article from draftspace, so I don't think keep moving it back would have any point. It fails the google test, and I doubt it's notable.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 07:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 07:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - as a hoax. -- Longhair\talk 08:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - I declined this as a draft (when it was rightfully moved out of mainspace) as it was totally unreferenced. The editor then decided to ignore the review and promote it to mainspace, pretty much defeating the purpose of the review process. A Google search reveals zip. Speedy delete and salt. David.moreno72 10:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:40, 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 and salt. – Joe (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rowzzy[edit]

Rowzzy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreated promotional article of non notable musician. Deleted 2 times, its draft under various name like this and this rejected at AFC many times. The author copy pasted it to mainspace and removed notability tag added. Sourced completely with unreliable blogs. Salting of all the titles used will also be useful. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I found a book published in Scotland in 1823 and a book published in Utah in 1930 using the word "rowzzy", and those books obviously have nothing to do with this contemporary Nigerian singer, who sadly, shows no evidence of notabilty. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:20, 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 and redirect to Major League Lacrosse. Sandstein 09:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MLL Supplemental Draft[edit]

MLL Supplemental Draft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTSTATS - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 06:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:48, 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 09:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MLL Expansion Draft[edit]

MLL Expansion Draft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTSTATS. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 06:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:47, 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 09:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Lacrosse Community Service Award[edit]

Major League Lacrosse Community Service Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, only given one year. Only source is MLL press release. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 06:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable enough for a redirect. Appears to be a one-off press release sponsored by Starbucks. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete utterly not notable. Two mere mentions in search and nothing else. Given to non notable person (redlink) surely no need of either article or redirect.–Ammarpad (talk) 03:18, 6 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 09:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sakshi Joshi[edit]

Sakshi Joshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

dubious notability, more or less an unsourced BLP FASTILY 05:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:25, 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 redirect to Coursework. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schoolwork[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Schoolwork (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Schoolwork is as I see it an extention of an article like Coursework and brings no meaningful value on its own and has very little potential in expanding. I think some information might be beneficial to merge and a redirect should be set up. EstablishedCalculus (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Redirecting the useful bits would be normal- but I am at a loss to find any useful bits. We have Glossary of education terms and none of the three words occcurs. The lead is repetitious and contradictory, and this sets the tone of the piece. Each section has conditionals like 'generally', 'normally' on most cases. The suggestion that teachers have discretion on when and how to set assessments talks of the halcyon days of the past in the UK. The section containing wlinks to the statistical terms Weighted average Arithmetic mean is barely true- this is could be expanded to include many areas of data analysis but then would be off focus, over prominent and subject to a move. The questions remains is there anything here that would add to other articles- would Wikipedia lose a single fact if the article was deleted. Nothing substantial has been added since the stub was created as a place holder in 2005. There was one attempt to delete, that recommended holding on and improving (hoping), though no suggestions on how. Delete. ClemRutter (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems to just be a vague and unsupported definition. JMWt (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Coursework – the two topics are closely related and this article, as stated above, is garbage. 165.91.13.168 (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per 165.91.13.168 as a {{R from alternate name}}. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: This is basically a subset of coursework. —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 03:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirection seems reasonable here. — regards, Revi 15:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Indeed a redirect seems appropriate here. I only wish this happened before the WP:TAFI period, so efforts could have been focused on the target coursework. Oh well! — MusikAnimal talk 18:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Homework - I think the whole coursework vs. schoolwork vs. homework thing is kind of messed up. Maybe all three are duplicates? At the very least, homework is the only decent quality article among them, the others are stubs. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 23:42, 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 and redirect to United States House of Representatives elections, 2018#Louisiana. Sandstein 09:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Guillory[edit]

Josh Guillory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable political candidate. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Sources present do not establish WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable political candidate. -- Longhair\talk 05:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This candidate is challenging an incumbent of the same party in Louisiana. I think the material provided was neutral, fact-oriented, and provides value.Windsor2013 (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected political candidate. The comment above by Windsor2013 ignores guidelines and previous consensus. We do not host campaign brochures posing as encyclopedia articles. If someone wants to write a neutral article about that 2018 political race, giving neutral coverage to all candidates, then a redirect can be created. If he wins, a biography can be written then. He is not now notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as Cullen328 points out, at the very least it's too soon. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections, 2018#Louisiana, the election in question, as is generally done for political candidates who aren't/aren't yet successful and have no other notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 13:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected political candidate. --Enos733 (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia — a person has to win the election, not just run in it, to pass WP:NPOL — and challenging an incumbent of the same party is not a notability boost, especially in a state which has "jungle primaries" in which multiple candidates of the same party routinely appear on the same ballot. But there's no evidence of preexisting notability for any other reason being shown here, and no evidence that his media coverage has blown up to the point that we would have to consider his candidacy a special "more notable than the norm" case like Christine O'Donnell or Jon Ossoff. Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections, 2018#Louisiana, insufficient indication of notability to support an independent article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a place for people to put up campaign brochures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As noted by others, you need to win an election to be notable. Suggest moving the article into the draft space. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 4 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 09:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ang Mo Kio Secondary School National Cadet Corps (Air)[edit]

Ang Mo Kio Secondary School National Cadet Corps (Air) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable uniformed group. Fails GNG. R22-3877 (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. R22-3877 (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. R22-3877 (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 13:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sub-organizations within secondary schools are rarely notable. I even doubt most university level ROTC units are notable, but this is more similar to JROTC, which I expect to be about as likely to be notable as a high school sports team, if not less likely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with possibly very selective merge to Ang Mo Kio Secondary School (I was about to !vote merge - but seeing there are no sources to back up this long chunk of text - doesn't seem like much is mergeable). The 65 strong after hours unit does not meet GNG, not does it seem likely it ever will.Icewhiz (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable for stand alone article as noted above. Kierzek (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think we established somewhere that high school cadet units are rarely notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 4 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 09:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1 World Music Festival[edit]

AfDs for this article:
1 World Music Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article for a festival that never happened, Sources confirm that it was planned but also confirmed that it was cancelled before it ever happened. See WP:BALL "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." - this one never took place. Previously at AfD where a "weak keep" swung the balance.Some sources originally available are now dead links and no new reliable sources have appeared.  Velella  Velella Talk   12:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. I found a few media reports discussing the event's cancellation, [12] [13] [14] [15] so it's possible that the article could be re-written with the focus on the fallout from this, per WP:LASTING - but as it stands, it fails WP:BALL ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2013 Singapore Grand Prix. Considering the event never happened, WP:CRYSTAL applies here. There does appear to be coverage about the cancellation though, so it's possible that a new article could be written based on the aftermath, but at the moment, I can't see how the cancellation had any lasting effects. As opposed to complete deletion, I would suggest a mention somewhere in the article for that year's Singapore Grand Prix, considering it was supposed to be tied to that event. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:21, 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. – Joe (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intercloud[edit]

Intercloud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was described as "mostly vendor hyperbole" in a comment in 2010, and I agree with that assessment. The vendor hyperbole appears to have died out without a notable product existing. Most of the references are press releases, and while there are at least two companies of this name, I see nothing about this as a concept. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:35, 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 04:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from the first sentence I thought this is real academically explored concept, but with contradiction in the subsequent paragraph, lack of reliable sources from my search and convincing nom statement, I bilieve this should be deleted before it is qouted in academic work and the work is quoted back to Wikipedia starting vicious cycle of WP:CIRCULAR –Ammarpad (talk) 02:38, 6 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlee Vance[edit]

Ashlee Vance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Subject has written two books, a serious biography and a travel guide, but that is not sufficient to meet the criteria of GNG or the guideline on creative professionals. Article lacks sources independent of the subject sufficient to establish notability. The article is sourced almost entirely to the subject's own writings, and frankly I am surprised that this article has survived quite so long in the years since it was created by an SPA. Coretheapple (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Created by an SPA is misleading; while it's true the first edit of this page was the only contribution by Tacotico (talk · contribs), there have been many other contributors over the past decade. Having authored a book with its own Wikipedia page plus having a decade-long career at top newspaper publications should definitely be enough for notability; if WP:AUTHOR suggests otherwise I suggest it be changed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the book is notable (the article seems rather promotional) then perhaps the solution is to merge this article into the one on that book. That's the path that is often taken with articles of this kind. We have no real biography here, just a list of credits, as well as some unsourced biographical details published nowhere and probably added by the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:37, 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 04:18, 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. – Joe (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Briggs Original[edit]

Briggs Original (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-Prodded. This is a small startup (founded 2016, first product in summer 2017, distribution mainly around Boston), has a few bits of coverage (mainly NE), clearly lacking WP:CORPDEPTH Icewhiz (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The company is new and not widely distributed but is gaining serious recognition for not only the beverage but for their music festival. I've added more sources including an article in nationally distributed Chilled Magazine, an article in the Boston Globe, and a vuz video that was shared by news outlets online and on tv throughout the country. The company is new, but notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojaque (talk • contribs)
    @Bojaque: - newly founded startups are very rarely notable. All companies try to promote themselves (particularly if selling to consumers) - I see some local coverage (of how 20 somethings who met at high-school founded a small beverage company) and some coverage in specialty magazines. How does this satisfy WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH?Icewhiz (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Icewhiz: - I would argue that your downplaying the coverage. There is significant regional and national coverage including tv news, none of which is the company self promoting but rather independent coverage. To me the 14 sources I included constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources" WP:GNG. Lastly I would make the point that how long the company has been around for doesn't necessarily have any correlation to its notability, and that there are other wikipedia pages for small companies with far fewer credible sources and far less depth of coverage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Bojaque (talk • contribs) 17:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can be convinced otherwise, but at the moment, all I'm seeing is coverage from publications in the Boston area, as well as some trade publications. I'm aware that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on Wikipedia, but each article must stand on its own merits irrespective of what else Wikipedia might have. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ,,, My grandma could think of a better idea for an article here, spam without hope. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 6 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) 00:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aurant, California[edit]

Aurant, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I live nearby and have never heard of this "unincorporated community". It appears that the name is only used in association with a rail yard that is now used for storage of corn syrup cars.[16] At one point in its history, it might have been a railroad station of some sort based on the very old hits I'm seeing on Google Books. I'm a geography inclusionist, but this one seems really dubious. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some further research shows that Aurant was a station on the Southern Pacific railroad (see figure 14 here). This article specifically notes that the building of the Southern Pacific Railroad in El Sereno in the late 1800s did not spur development in the area. Development came with a completely different railroad that followed Huntington Drive, in a different part of El Sereno. As of this 1966 map (see also 1994 update), Aurant seems to have been a railyard with a few commercial/industrial buildings nearby. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Consensus seems to be that any place listed in GNIS is notable, but consensus can change. So here's to hoping it does. Yilloslime TC 05:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Consensus is that these places are notable, and if you want to change that, the solution is not to stealthily pick them off one by one, it's to start a policy discussion. Smartyllama (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A similar nomination might be given by Clinton Township, Michigan residents of Cady, Michigan. However this would not change the fact that for 100 years it regularly appeared on maps, and its past existence has an influence on even the present development of the area just north of Fraser.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that facts about Clinton Township, Michigan are at all relevant to a discussion about Aurant, California. As noted above, the building of the Southern Pacific Railroad (and the Aurant stop) did not drive development in El Sereno. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to El Sereno, Los Angeles. Any place listed in GNIS is NOT de-facto notable. I have successfully deleted many trailer parks whose names made it into GNIS. A better article about a trailer park with hundreds of current residents could probably be made than about this rail yard, but neither is notable. It should just be mentioned as a location in the article about the area it lies within. MB 17:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  As per [17], strikers derailed a train at "Aurant station", with this newspaper article saying, "Los Angeles, July 11 [1894].— After the first show of lawlessness last night, both Federal and railroad officials were greatly agitated today and a new line of action had to be pursued."  Unscintillating (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are all train stations necessarily notable? (Genuine question.) I accept that there was a train station called Aurant station, but I'm not sure that means we need an article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) What I think is that we should accept the GNIS as a verifiable authority for a point of reference of a location that is recorded as part of 1894 history. 
    This 1894 article is enough to see that Aurant station was the center of 1894 news that affected people from San Francisco to Arizona.  This wasn't the only reference I saw, as there is a 1924 request from Union Pacific to build a spur, and a 1928 analysis about lowering the roadbed out of Aurant for 2 1/2 miles to get the grade down to 1%.  We see someone chatting about Aurant yard as an active rail yard in 1984.  There was also mention of an El Sereno historical society.
    It would be lovely to know the origin of the name "Aurant".  Unscintillating (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I found that "Aurant" is already mentioned in the encyclopedia, so I wikilinked it.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) As for your question, I am aware that WP:RAILOUTCOMES states, "Existing heavy rail stations on a main system...are generally kept at AfD."  Perhaps someone from Wikiproject Trains can provide a better answer.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:23, 4 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. – Joe (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jigsaw Records[edit]

Jigsaw Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The record label fails WP:COMPANY. Looking for sources, only unreliable or non-independent sources appear. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:08, 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 04:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless much better evidence of notability can be found. I was able to find only limited coverage in local blogs and press (opening a shop four months late in the suburbs of Seattle is not the sort of achievement that justifies a Wikipedia article). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are no sufficient independent sources to show notability. Fails both basic WP:GNG and company's SNG [[[WP:CORP]] –Ammarpad (talk) 04:50, 6 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 09:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East[edit]

Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The report exists, but does not seem to be notable. The article just lists the table of contents. What effect did it have on US foreign policy? Rusf10 (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 12:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge briefly to James Van Fleet. His article says nothing of the mission that resulted in this report, so that a summary would make a useful addition to his bio. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So he wrote a report. No evidence that it is notable. Looked it up in The Joint Chiefs of Staff and National Policy 1953-1954. You can find it on pp. 250-251 and 279. The NSC did not adopt his recommendations. Perhaps worth a sentence in his bio. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While it might merit a mention in the James Van Fleet article, there is nothing here to suggest the report is notable enough to have an article of its own. Dunarc (talk) 23:28, 4 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 09:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Lacrosse seasons[edit]

List of Major League Lacrosse seasons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only a list of wikilinks. Function duplicates already existing template. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- template serves same purpose--Rusf10 (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete entirely redundant to the template. Four years out of date. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:00, 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. Sandstein 09:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Mariner[edit]

Jonathan Mariner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A directory-like listing on a non-notable businessperson. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up are passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP, such as this interview [18] or coverage in user-generated section in Forbes: [19]. Affiliated with a nn company TaxDay with no other indications of notability or significance. I don't believe that "highest-ranking minority employee at the central office of MLB" is enough: [20]. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A mid level manager with a moderately interesting career, who does not rise to the level of notability. All of the coverage in reliable sources results from promotion or press releases by the organizations he has been involved with. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- For reasons stated above, he is not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I made the stub. I don't disagree with the assessments above - I felt I'd just barely found enough references to show notability when it went live, and I looked around pretty carefully. So if these aren't enough, I doubt more research will help, and deletion would be sensible. Benji the Pen (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete CFOs are very rarely notable, except in some of the biggest corporations and with significant coverage. Same goes for CEOs of non-notable companies, and many CEOs of notable companies as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 4 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 Miguel Miramón. And merge any relevant content from history. Sandstein 08:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correspondence between Miguel Miramón and Concepción Lombardo[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Correspondence between Miguel Miramón and Concepción Lombardo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:PLOT, there's no reason for this article. The letters could get a small mention in the Miguel Miramon article, but no reason to have multiple quotes. Rusf10 (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Miguel Miramón (which is rather short and should be expanded significantly in general). The question, in my mind, is whether this collection meets WP:NBOOK - from what I see (in the sourcing in the article, and in a BEFORE) - this does not seem to be the case, though it is of some importance.Icewhiz (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete anything of importance can be said in the article on Miramón.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (not delete) -- The letters are probably an important historical source, though I do not know. Nevertheless, we do not need a separate article on the published collection. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 3 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 08:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Jarda[edit]

Olivier Jarda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a musician, with no real claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC besides the fact that he and his music exist. Full disclosure, I'm actually the original creator here, back when our inclusion standards for musicians were a lot looser than they are in 2017, and being able to single-source the fact that the musician existed was usually enough -- but the amount of advertorial abuse to which the old approach opened us up led us to considerably tighten up the inclusion and sourcing standards for musicians, and this guy just doesn't have a strong enough notability claim or strong enough sourcing to pass the inclusion test as it now stands. Bearcat (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the article creator (exprienced admin) feels it no longer satisfy current inclusion standards, it should be deleted. Plus its history shows it didn't get any sugnificant input from others (since creation in 2010) –Ammarpad (talk) 04:09, 6 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. – Joe (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anupam Mittal[edit]

Anupam Mittal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An advertorially toned BLP on an unremarkable businessperson. Significant RS coverage not found. Article cited to online directories, passing metions, WP:SPIP or other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Created and edited by a number of blocked socks; sample: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jiteshdugar. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The first reference seems alright, but is quite self-promotional, this is good but weaves and uses too much quoting from himself to make it a reliable source (it's too much on primary). On that case delete. !dave 18:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lots of advertising trying to sell how good and influential his company is, no sources to back it up or show that it is actually impactful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 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 speedy delete. WP:A7 - makes no assertion of importance or notability. The Bushranger One ping only 11:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Taylor (musician)[edit]

Liam Taylor (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP. HINDWIKI • CHAT 01:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HINDWIKI • CHAT 01:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. HINDWIKI • CHAT 01:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 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 speedy delete. This was submitted at AfC, was declined [21], and then the creator moved it to mainspace without even removing the AfC template. When combined with the fact that this perfectly fits the letter of WP:A7 (subset {{db-band}}), I'm going ahead and speedying this. The Bushranger One ping only 11:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Líam[edit]

Líam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability guidelines of WP:BAND. Caorongjin (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As written, could be speedy deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is currently a two sentence article, and a Google search for Liam (band) throws up more hits for Liam Gallagher than for this band. Vorbee (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:38, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_November_29&oldid=1142223995"