Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 November	4 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazala Mulla[edit]

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

No independent sources to show notability. Both sources present are self-published. Google search only shows her as a speaker at conferences - best one I could find is https://traditionalmedicine.conferenceseries.com/speaker/2015/ghazala-javed-mulla-z-v-m-unani-medical-college-hospital-india - nowhere near enough significant sources available to pass GNG. RexxS (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches only show a few links to social networking sites. No reliable sources to establish subject's notability, fails WP:GNG. Moreover, the article completely violates WP:NPOV. It might be a case of WP:TNT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could not find mentions in large papers independent of the subject, indicating a lack of notability. —Paleo Neonate – 03:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Govt of India has already approved her well-respected researcher and professor within the organization. So Dr Ghazala Mulla is a well respected professor and deserves a place in Wikipedia. Authors in many books.

Below are the few links, open the link and click download

Comparative study of Hematological profile of Cupping (Hijamah) versus venous blood, published in the International Journal of advances in health sciences (IJHS), Vol.2, Issue1, 2015, pp101-107 (ISSN 2349-7033). Index Copernicus: 78.02

http://www.ijhsonline.com/index.php/archives/viewdownload/7-vol2-issue1-feb-2015/120-a-comparative-study-of-hematological-profile-of-cupping-hijamah-versus-venous-blood and http://www.ijhsonline.com/index.php/archives/finish/7-vol2-issue1-feb-2015/120-a-comparative-study-of-hematological-profile-of-cupping-hijamah-versus-venous-blood

Hormone receptor sensitivity in Breast Cancer patients in Pune city of Maharashtra State, India – A retrospective study,published in International Journal of Advanced Biotechnology and Research(IJBR), Vol 6, Issue2, 2015, pp196-202 , ISSN 0976-2612, Online ISSN 2278–599X, Impact Factor:1.506,icv:5.73 https://bipublication.com/files/IJABR-V6I2-2015-6.pdf

Withania somnifera L.Dunal A potential herb for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, published online on June 30, 2014 in the international journal “Annals of Phytomedicine” 3(1): 98-102, 2014(ISSN No: 2278-9839) http://ukaazpublications.com/attached/publications/C-13_2.pdf

A Prospective Open Label Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate Safety and Efficacy of Olive Oil in Cases of Gall Stone published online in the "International Journal of Advances in Health Sciences" (IJHS), Vol 2, Issue 4, 2015, pp458-466, (ISSN 2349-7033) http://www.ijhsonline.com/index.php/archives/viewdownload/11-vol2-issue4-august-2015/814-a-prospective-open-label-randomized-clinical-trial-to-evaluate-safety-and-efficacy-of-olive-oil-in-cases-of-gall-stone and http://www.ijhsonline.com/index.php/archives/finish/11-vol2-issue4-august-2015/814-a-prospective-open-label-randomized-clinical-trial-to-evaluate-safety-and-efficacy-of-olive-oil-in-cases-of-gall-stone

Spectrum of BMI & Assessment of Body Composition in Female Medical Students and Role of Riyazat (Exercise) in the Management of Obesity published online in the "International Journal of Advances in Health Sciences" (IJHS), Vol 3, Issue 2, 2016, pp129-137, (ISSN 2349-7033)

http://www.ijhsonline.com/index.php/archives/viewdownload/17-vol-3-issue-2-june-2016/1272-spectrum-of-bmi-assessment-of-body-composition-in-female-medical-students-and-role-of-riyazat-exercise-in-the-management-of-obesity and http://www.ijhsonline.com/index.php/archives/finish/17-vol-3-issue-2-june-2016/1272-spectrum-of-bmi-assessment-of-body-composition-in-female-medical-students-and-role-of-riyazat-exercise-in-the-management-of-obesity

Restoration of visual acuity with “ISOTINE” eye drops -an Ayurvedic formulation: A retrospective study of case series in various eye disorders published online in the "International Journal of Advances in Health Sciences" Vol 3, Issue 3, 2016, pp179-190 (IJHS), (ISSN 2349-7033) http://www.ijhsonline.com/index.php/archives/viewdownload/18-vol3-issue3-aug-2016/1294-restoration-of-visual-acuity-with-isotine-eye-drops-an-ayurvedic-formulation-a-retrospective-study-of-case-series-in-various-eye-disorders and http://www.ijhsonline.com/index.php/archives/finish/18-vol3-issue3-aug-2016/1294-restoration-of-visual-acuity-with-isotine-eye-drops-an-ayurvedic-formulation-a-retrospective-study-of-case-series-in-various-eye-disorders

For additional refer http://www.drghazalamulla.com/publications.html

Few more other references are https://traditionalmedicine.conferenceseries.com/speaker/2015/ghazala-javed-mulla-z-v-m-unani-medical-college-hospital-india

https://www.omicsonline.org/speaker/ghazala-mulla-zvm-unani-medical-college-india/

http://www.ahealth.co.uk/herbs-and-hakim-hijama-centre-in-pune-city-maharashtra-india/

https://aaliyahkhansite.wordpress.com/2017/04/02/healing-through-hijamah/

attendened many conferences, few are http://aapna.org/conferences/10th-conference-feb-2014-lucknow-india

attended ibnsinaconference http://ibnsinaconference.blogspot.in

Consulting http://www.cuppingtherapyindia.com/about-us

Poster designed for Dr Ghazala http://kraftpoquito.blogspot.in/2016/11/poster-designed-for-dr-ghazala-mulla_22.html

As a teacher - College Website http://zvmunanimchpune.org/achievements.php

Government of India site http://www.ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pdf_generate.php?trialid=8445&EncHid=&modid=&compid=%27,%278445det%27

Central Council of Indian Medicine, Govt https://ccimindia.org/get-teac-un-name-wise.php?page=46

I think she meets the page at Wikiepedia WP:PROF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.124.48.238 (talk) 05:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep, probably speedy keep~~ - Dr Ghazala Mulla is well know professor and is approved by Govt of India, few of the Govt Sites are

Government of India site. http://www.ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pdf_generate.php?trialid=8445&EncHid=&modid=&compid=%27,%278445det%27

Central Council of Indian Medicine, Govt https://ccimindia.org/get-teac-un-name-wise.php?page=46 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.124.48.238 (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep, probably speedy keep~~ - Dr Ghazala Mulla few more books are

unani herbs as effective remedy for treating dyslipidemia - http://www.wjpps.com/download/article/1451544154.pdf

few more sites http://ukaazpublications.com/attached/publications/C-13_2.pdf and http://www.worldunanifoundation.org/images/Programme-Schedule.pdf and http://ccrum.res.in/writereaddata/UploadFile/Hippocratic6_1998.pdf and http://mol.medicalonline.jp/en/archive/search?jo=cv2jrmen&ye=2013&vo=8&issue=1

College site http://www.abedainamdarcollege.org.in/college/dept_chemistry2.html and http://aissmscop.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Pharmavoice_vol_2_issue_3_2016-2017.pdf

News Site http://painewsbulletin.com/?p=2435

Conference Site http://www.koknivyaparicouncil.com/kvc/trade-fair-held-in-navi-mumbai/

~~keep, probably speedy keep~~ -

With former president A. P. J. Abdul Kalam at Goa IARM Conference IARM - International Association of Rural Health and Medicine https://mafiadoc.com/the-report-of-18th-congress-of-the-international-association-j-stage_59929ed31723ddcd6988c7b5.html and https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jrm/8/1/8_7/_pdf

Govt Site http://ayush.gov.in/sites/default/files/Final_CCRUM_Annual_Report_English_2015_2016.pdf and http://urducouncil.nic.in/schemes/sanctionOrders/pdf/BPSO-28-8-12.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.124.48.238 (talk) 05:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep, probably speedy keep~~ - Attending the conference in Dubai, AYUSH Govt of India

http://www.ayushdubai.org/home — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.124.48.238 (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Dr Ghazala Mulla is a well respected professor and deserves a place in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.210.217.23 (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2017

— 106.210.217.23 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. MTTrain^Discuss 09:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt due to failing GNG and obvious promotional pressure. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 45.124.48.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been edit-warring to insert multiple !votes into this discussion. That IP is a broadband address in Pune; and 106.210.217.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) – whose only contribution to Wikipedia is the !vote above – is a mobile phone IP from Pune. That's too much of a coincidence, and I'm asking the closer to consider the duck test and discount that !vote as a sock or meatpuppet. --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for academics which is what she would have to pass.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional and contains false claims - eg first to write about cupping therapy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:19, 7 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe White (speaker)[edit]

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

Couldn't decide whether to AfD or CSD. It's promotional on one hand and a BLP problem on the other. The only sources are about that BLP issue, and it's unclear if he's notable otherwise. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sexual abuse charges are documented, but they are not about Joe White per se. The rest just doesn't have independent references and even if they did - is a a guy who runs a youth camp notable? There are 2 very bad reasons to keep the article. Each would involve deleting half the article (which half depends on which reason). Better just to delete the whole thing, maybe even salt the mess. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Codacy[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is PR-driven / WP:SPIP. Raised $6 in funding which strongly suggests it's WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia article. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 4 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 Lenny Lipton. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations of the Stereoscopic Cinema[edit]

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

Lacks notoriety. Google search produces no info from reliable sources. Violates guidelines barring self-promotion. Tapered (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tapered, would a speedy redirect to Lenny Lipton, the author, be amenable for you (alternative to deletion)? I don't think this needs a full discussion. Only reviews in Book Review Index are CHOICE (Nov 1983, p. 440) and PSA Journal (Sept 1982, p. 9), both of which I'd consider minor. czar 06:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @CZAR: 'Tsallright by me! Please explain what that extra |p= in your 'ping' is on my Talk page, if you would. Tapered (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lenny Lipton per above. WP:NBOOK not met, but redirects are cheap. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modified hyperbolic tangent[edit]

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

Topic is not notable. As well, the article was originally written by someone with a username similar to the author of the main source used here. I can find only a couple of other authors that refer to this, certainly not enough to establish notability. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the mathematical concept is fairly straightforward, but I don't see sufficient referencing to verify that it is commonly referred to by this name. Current version appears to WP:UNDUEly promote Elena Soboleva. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:08, 8 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uroš Poljanec[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator based on an inadequately supported claim to general notability and Poljanec's appearances for NK Aluminij. The latter does not does not satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL as the club was playing in the non-fully-pro Slovenian second division at the time. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Poljanec was part of NK Aluminij when they achieved promotion to the Slovenian top division in 2012 (see wiki article 2012–13 Slovenian PrvaLiga) and stayed there until later that year, when the league already begun play that season.Das osmnezz (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – It doesnt matter if he was part of the team or not, he was uncapped in the top division. And he played in the 4th division for NK Pohorje in the 2012-13 season, debuting in late August 2012 in the 1st round (source), so there is no doubt. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - There is also evidence of notability since a comprehensive interview [1] was written about him which also supports my 'keep' point.Das osmnezz (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Interview with a player is a primary source, and one interview is not "significant coverage" required to pass WP:GNG, there would need to be several articles like that from multiple media. Snowflake91 (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Delete - as per nomination.Das osmnezz (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he didn't play in a match in a fully professional league, and so fails WP:NFOOTY. And no evidence he passes WP:GNG either. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zak Downes[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator based on a single interview and Downes' spell at Arizona United. However, one source is never sufficient for general notability, and he never actually appeared in a match for Arizona, so his time their does not satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as well as the interview, other sources indicate his notability including 24 GOALKEEPERS UNDER 24: USMNT PROSPECTS and D2 Men's Soccer: 5 Outstanding Freshmen Who Made Their Mark in 2014. He has also played for the US U20 and U19 teams as well according to this Das osmnezz (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Only seeing that one interview as evidence of GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:42, 9 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phoca Cart[edit]

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

A run-of-the-mill software package (a Joomla! extension). No claim of notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a part of this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_shopping_cart_software - Each item listed there includes wiki page, so this article should not be removed.

The article is still improving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MngLt (talk • contribs) 20:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not confer notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that while the article meets the relevant notability standards, it needs much work to bring it up to our editorial standards. ansh 666 02:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of shopping cart software[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE and filled with what appears to be WP:OR. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, this is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of information that could go on forever. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 20:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It needs improvements for WP:V, but meets notability standards very well. It meets the notability standards so well, in fact, that it's the self same reason why I think the list is actually a VERY discriminating list. (Only entries with Wikipedia articles have been allowed it seems). Therefore, I disagree with this notion that the list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If that is the main basis for deletion, then this should be reason enough to think differently. Anybody could easily call any list indiscriminate with the claim that it could go on forever, but not when the list is effectively limited to "Wiki link" entries only. Huggums537 (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Huggums537, certainly not WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is filled with list/comparison articles of this type, and they provide a useful resource. Needs better sourcing, but much of it is not WP:OR. No reason to delete. Greenman (talk) 08:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is standard in the computing area of Wikipedia to have comparison articles like this. See Category:Software comparisons for the dozens of other articles. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per above discussion. It's perfectly notable information and such comparison pages are very well established. The issues are merely regarding sources. — LucasVB | Talk 06:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiversity, if not appropriate for Wikipedia. Original research is allowed there. It might be a useful research/resource to list under v:School:Business Michael Ten (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact this article could easily fit in on a money saving 'comparison' site does not mean it can't also be a perfectly reasonable article. I would appreciate some way of defining what features we are supposed to be comparing in a NPOV manner though, people often balance such lists to show that their products have more features by including features the opposition never intended to be in their products. It is also very long and should be considered for splitting. As has already been pointed out, every entry on the list is notable, and this type of list is not generally considered indiscriminate. Dysklyver 09:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, WP:OR itself is not an argument for deletion and that should be solved by improving the article. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports. Indiscriminate list. An impressive body of work, but this is not an encyclopedic treatment, it is a comparative list of features. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject here is notable, but Wikipedia is not a place for "Comparison of..." type articles. WP:TNT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Those would be pretty good arguments for comparative lists if there were only something from WP:NOT that wasn't conducive to them. However, there's nothing I could find at WP:NOT that doesn't allow for comparative lists, which is why I'm assuming neither one of you actually quoted anything from WP:NOT for the comparison list argument? One editor did link to WP:NOT, but provided no quote related to comparison lists. Huggums537 (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but edit and rewrite. The biggest issue here is that the only people who are qualified to keep this up to date are employees of the companies listed. This is going to encourage companies to edit their own info. The second biggest issue is there's really no independent sourcing for the vast majority of this info. Anyone can say they support any feature and have it listed on their web site, even if it's not available yet, and most people wouldn't know. If you can get beyond those two big issues, then this needs to be edited so that the different parameters are explained, and if a feature is included with every vendor or all but one or two, that doesn't need to be an entire column of yeses. That's better as a line of prose. And, are all these features important? It's very cluttered. A question better answered by someone more familiar with these products than me. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. While there are content issues, WP:TEXTBOOKS is met. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A History of the Modern World[edit]

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

A textbook, doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK. The obituary of the author references some newspaper articles that I can't find, but seem likely to be trivial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This book qualifies as a notable textbook under the criteria set forth at WP:TEXTBOOKS. The author's New York Times obituary makes the case succinctly: "This year, the ninth edition of Dr. Palmer's textbook, A History of the Modern World, was published, and overall sales are approaching two million. First published in 1950, it has been translated into six languages and is used in more than 1,000 colleges and universities as well as many high school advanced placement courses. . . . In 1987, The New York Times put it on its list of the 19 classic textbooks of all time, in all disciplines. The Washington Post in 1996 called it 'the first book to be elevated to the textbook hall of fame.'"[2] Likewise, his AHA obit reports: "Back at Princeton he completed his most influential work, a textbook on modern European history that became the gold standard for classroom books. First published by Alfred Knopf in 1950, A History of the Modern World was revised for subsequent editions in collaboration with Joel Colton. In the twilight of his unparalleled publishing career, Mr. Knopf named Palmer's textbook, in company with various literary giants, as one of his proudest accomplishments. Generations of college students valued its lucid prose, artful weaving of detail and argument, and (perhaps without realizing it) its humane liberal perspective. The textbook was translated into several languages, is still in print today, and has sold well over one million copies."[3] Now, what's needed to improve this article is more sources to further verify and elucidate this book's longstanding status. The recently-added and lengthy index of the book's contents, on the other hand, is not really the sort of thing we tend to include in Wikipedia articles. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not realize that there were separate guidelines for textbooks. It probably meets those, though I'm not certain enough to withdraw this AfD yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times [4] states "A History of the Modern World, was published, and overall sales are approaching two million. First published in 1950, it has been translated into six languages and is used in more than 1,000 colleges and universities as well as many high school advanced placement courses." (meets WP:NBOOK point 4) Besides not many historical authors gets a necrologue in the New York Times

(also meets WP:NBOOK point 5). R.R. Palmer also has written many other historical literature [5], [6],[7] - quite a lot actually [8]. And American Historical Association [9] (of which Palmer has been President, apparantly) about this work states "A History of the Modern World was revised for subsequent editions in collaboration with Joel Colton. In the twilight of his unparalleled publishing career, Mr. Knopf named Palmer's textbook, in company with various literary giants, as one of his proudest accomplishments. Generations of college students valued its lucid prose, artful weaving of detail and argument, and (perhaps without realizing it) its humane liberal perspective. The textbook was translated into several languages, is still in print today, and has sold well over one million copies." And this imperative work of RR Palmer, must be put beyond any single doubts. Or in other words the, article as such meets WP:NBOOK and more. It can still be improved though. Please abort this awkward deletion matter. Boeing720 (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, since the nominator is not proposing deletion. Instead, the article will be redirected to Hamilton County Schools per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. —C.Fred (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyner Middle Academy[edit]

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

Is just an ordinary public middle school. Except under rare circumstances, only public high schools are notable. Redirect to Hamilton County Schools. JUDAS MAIDEN (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:03, 3 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 Hamilton County Schools. As there is an obvious redirect target for this link that reflects the consensus of the community as expressed in WP:OUTCOMES, I am going ahead and redirecting this per WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

East Lake Academy of Fine Arts[edit]

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

Just an ordinary middle school. Not notable.JUDAS MAIDEN (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hamilton County Schools per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I don't see any harm in keeping the history, but the middle school academy is not independently notable and should not have its own article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 3 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dimapur-Chumoukedima[edit]

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

Dimapur-Chumoukedima has no official status, and coverage is insufficient to warrant its own article. If any of it is considered useful it should be merged into Dimapur. Batternut (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment The 2011 census of India about Dimapur says "Urban Agglomeration - Only City" (here), and about Nagaland, under "Large Metropolitan Region", says "There is no Metropolitan Region having population above 1 Lakh" (here) which somewhat counters the article's claim of an urban population of 230,106. Batternut (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for spotting this. I was surprised to see this article. As far as I know, there is no metropolitan region (for example like National Capital Region (India)) in Nagaland till date. Dimapur city is the commercial hub of Nagaland (followed by Kohima and Mokokchung). Chumukedima is only a town in the Dimpapur district and contrary to what the article says, it is not the headquarters of Dimapur district.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is factually incorrect and original research. It seems all of this is the work of one editor (See Special:Contributions/Stratosfart) who actually changed the capital of Dimapur district to Chumukedima (even though it is actually Dimapur city). This incorrect information has been unchanged for 10 years now.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per DreamLinker, this approaches WP:HOAX territory. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 8 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honor, Inc.[edit]

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

Out of scope, not-notable Hedwig in Washington ^(TALK) 18:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage is almost entirely of funding announcements. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Haeng-su[edit]

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

Unable to find coverage to satisfy GNG. The leage he plays in, Korea National League, is a third tier leage not listed at WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, thus I do not believe he meets NFOOTY either. J04n(talk page) 18:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 18:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 18:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 18:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Lee made 6 appearances in the K-League Classic while with Daegu FC during 2012. I'm not skilled at searching for Korean-language sources, but I'm a little worried this article cannot satisfy the GNG because this player's career hasn't been very distinguished to this point. Jogurney (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a lack of sources to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:FOOTY and is 27 years and currently playing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Palarong Pambansa[edit]

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

Non-notable sports event. The event is for students and this does not indicate any sort of notability. Also the article is currently unreferenced. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks notable with reliable sources Kanatonian (talk) 19:48, 9 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mamadou Guirassy[edit]

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

Article about collegiate/amateur footballer who hasn't played in a fully-pro league or at senior international level, and which doesn't meet the general notability guideline. PROD was removed without explanation. Jogurney (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see anything to pass NFooty. Govvy (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:40, 9 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 close. Wrong venue, categories are discussed at WP:Categories for discussion. A discussion on this particular category may be found at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_3#Category:Michael_Lisicky. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Michael Lisicky[edit]

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

After removing pages inappropriately categorized here (stores that the subject has written about), there is nothing left. —swpb^{T go beyond} 17:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Axe manufacturing in Pennsylvania[edit]

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

It is hard to figure out what to do with this: it was denied at AfC a few times because it was too essay-like, and I think it still is: "Axe manufacturing in PA" is not a topic in the sense that Corn production in the United States is a topic (as evidenced by publications such as this). Rather, this is a list of some companies that created tools there, based on local histories and some newspaper articles. Note the sourcing: many, too many, of the sources are privately published books, and we find a couple of websites. One searches in vain for the standard publication in the field among the citations, but worse, that publication seems to designate no special position to Pennsylvania as a location for the manufacturing of axes--they were made there, plentifully, but no differently from other states. In short, what we have here is not a topic but rather a kind of umbrella for excruciatingly detailed local histories who not by themselves seem to rise to the level of notability per GNG. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I moved this page out of AfC on the recommendation of Legacypac and I saw no reason not to move this. I would characterise the sources as sufficient. What we've got to consider here is that the age of the sources, and the fact that they were covered at all is indicative of historical notability- that is to say that this brand would have been well known in the past. The fact we've got histories written on this company written in 1888, and sizeable mentions in books e.g. Ancient Carpenters' Tools by Henry Mercer (and others linked in the article) shows notability within the axe manufacturing niche. IMO, there's no doubt that this company was notable within its field (axe manufacturing) within its time (really 1800s), but my opinion is that were this company be alive today in the scale it was back then, it would pass GNG. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a much more encyclopedic topic than many we cover. It’s an actual history topic about an important industry in a large geographic area. Legacypac (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is actually a perfectly viable subject matter. I do think the article could use some cleanup, but deletion is not cleanup. Sourcing is there. An industry with several manufacturers will almost always meet GNG, and it seems that here too.Icewhiz (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the nominator fairly states that many of the sources are self-published, many others are regional newspapers with a cumulative weight sufficient to meet WP:SECONDARY, assuming that all the sources are fairly cited. More generally, the article subject itself is perfectly encyclopedic. Fiachra10003 (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My first thought was that this article seems to be too local to central Pennsylvania (I'd expect Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and Pittsburg to play a bigger role). However, while iron works in other parts of the state are/were a big deal, looking through google and newspapers.com, I think this article does a good job summarizing the key parts of the industry in the state and don't see major thematic changes as necessary, much less deletion. On the contrary of suggestion that this page is too local, I would suggest some of the firms and individuals could have their own wikipedia pages and some of the material on this page moved to those pages. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- it seems a perfectly good article, though it mainly focuses on one firm. It might have been split so that the Mann firm(s) had an article which would be a "main" article to one on the others, but why bother. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually this article has reliable sources and the topic besides being historic is covered well directly (as evidenced by extensive bibliography, which are reputably published books). Per WP:GNG once topic is covered reasonably in RS, then it can have standalone page. — Ammarpad (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A nice sourced essay of a topic meeting GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough cleanup is needed that I wouldn't have moved it out of draft space yet, but the topic is fine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A rename to "Axe manufacturing in the United States" or something slightly more general may be reasonable, but as an editorial decision once the article is improved and expanded. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I know I'm bucking the majority here, but I am truly finding it difficult to see this as an encyclopedic topic. If conflating an industry with a locality is all one needs for "encyclopedic value", where does it stop? Plumbing in Tyrolia? Button making in Wessex? Dog grooming in Arizona? And Wikipedia already knows the answer to this question -- an article requires a demonstration that authoritative sources have discussed the particular conflation as a real "thing". And what evidence for that do we have here? Nothing except the opinion of a guy who runs a website and wrote some self-published books. But neither of the two books cited here was registered at the Library of Congress and a search at WorldCat shows that they are not held by any of the more than 70,000 libraries in its worldwide system.
I also thought it might be possible to re-purpose the article. It is essentially a history of Mann Edge Tools, to which has been appended a listing of brief "biographies" of other companies. But would Mann Edge Tools qualify for a separate article? Again, we have little more than a book published by a local museum (the Fagley text). And how much authority does this book have? Looking through the references, the highest page number being cited is 42, suggesting that this book is really little more than a pamphlet. And as with the Lamond texts, there has been no registration at the Library of Congress and no holdings by any library in the WorldCat system. I don't see this as enough to justify an article on the company. And as for the rest of the sources -- they're all local newspapers and guides that talk about local companies and industries.
In all, the article's author has not demonstrated that this is an encyclopedic topic. I don't know if there is a publication with a name like Axe Maker Monthly but, if there is, that would be the perfect venue for publishing the research that was done here. But Wikipedia is not the place for it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Hudson Reporter[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are either itself or passing mentions. Google searches don't reveal anything more than passing mentions. Galobtter (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Yeah I see that it is notable as a newspaper. Galobtter (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Galobtter (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If there is anything man-made that is "inherently notable", newspapers would come the closest. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NMEDIA#Newspapers, magazines and journals nos. 1, 2, 5. Instead of deleting this article, merging of the chain's constituents into it might be considered. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above Djflem (talk) 01:57, 8 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 Cleveland, Tennessee#Parks and recreation. As the nominator does not propose deletion, I'm going ahead and closing this as a redirect to the suggested target. (And, as it will be asked, Cleveland, Ohio uses "Cleveland Division of Recreation".) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Parks and Recreation[edit]

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

Don't see how this is notable. Is a department of a small town. Suggest redirect to Cleveland, Tennessee.JUDAS MAIDEN (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 3 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to North Korean nuclear tests[edit]

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

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

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

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the September 2016 North Korean nuclear test, these are all cases of the same boilerplate condemnations. They all reduce to the same sentence: "International reactions to the year North Korean nuclear test were nearly unanimous in their condemnation and denunciation of the test." The rest is belaboring. Mangoe (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried looking for differences in the responses of key players like Russia, China, South Korea and the US, but honestly, it's a major deja vu: the response is pretty much always the same. Russia and China strongly condemn and possibly support sanctions, while South Korea and US flex their military muscles in response. Perhaps there is some minor merit to seeing that the responses HAVEN'T changed rather than that they have. But the articles for the tests themselves all have key summaries of reactions already. Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Basically per the argument I provided at the AFD leading to this one. I planned on creating a discussion on the remainder of the "reactions to...articles" for the various N. Korean nuclears tests after gauging the community's consensus on a single article. Seeing how it was almost unanimously deleted and these articles are not uniquely different, the conclusion should be the same.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiversity. Could be original research falling under a variety of disciplines. Michael Ten (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These kind of articles which simply collate cherry-picked quotes from national governments (does each government really deliver only a single pithy sentence on whatever the topic is? - of course not. There are all kinds of complex reactions, and the context in which they occur is important) are useless and unencyclopedic. Nick-D (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. If there is anything of significance here (I do not think so), this should be included to other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Could never be complete with subjective entries and content. Agree with Nick-D, "useless and unencyclopedic" collection of comments. Kierzek (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page was created to declutter the 2009 original 2009 North Korean nuclear test page but just getting rid of this stuff instead is probably a better idea. As others have said the contents can never be complete and really don't provide any useful information. Mtpaley (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carwood Lipton[edit]

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

Carwood Lipton was a senior NCO and later junior officer with E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II. His performance in the field led to him being offered and accepting a basttlefield commission. He was respected by his superiors and subordinates but his highest rank (first lieutenant) and highest award (Bronze Star) do not qualify him for coverage under WP:SOLDIER. His work after the War as an executive in the glass industry earned him no significant coverage. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as with most all of the others from "Band of Brothers"; fails notability and does not independently rise to a level for a stand alone article. WP:NOTMEMORIAL, applies. With that said, redirect name to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Kierzek (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Above and beyond the book, he has received enduring coverage over his lifetime and in this lengthy obituary about him, all of which establishes his notability; notability is not determined based on the number of medals or stars on a soldier's uniform. The claim that this article fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL is complete and total bullshit. Simply asserting that an article isn't notable and ignoring reliable and verifiable sourcing is antithetical to the purpose of this project as an encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. Rusted AutoParts 20:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep the extensive coverage means he meets WP:GNG with ease, and as Alansohn said, citing WP:NOTMEMORIAL is ridiculous. Rockypedia (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Alonsohn, etc. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep Seems to be consensus that the content merits inclusion. A discussion could be held on the talk page as to exactly where, but I don't see any clear merge target, so it's probably best in its own article. ansh 666 02:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Boy (rapper)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Appears to have little independent notability outside of his work with House of Pain. A search for sources brought back articles about Danny Boy (singer), or this Danny Boy's association with House of Pain, or this Danny Boy's struggles with addiction and criminal charges. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Rapper lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Firtsly, if a member of a notable band doesn't have sufficient notability outside the band, or enough to write about to merit a separate article, the thing to do is to merge and redirect the article to the band, not to start an AfD. The question then is does this individual justify an article? Most of the coverage I found related to his membership of House of Pain, but some didn't: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. There's enough coverage of his other group, La Coka Nostra among them to make it notable, which means he satisfies WP:NMUSIC as a key member of two notable bands. If the article were to be expanded using the available sources I feel it would be viable as a standalone. --Michig (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources easily found by Michig and clearly passing WP:NMUSIC. GuzzyG (talk) 07:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article about the band. Not convinced that he is notable enough as an individual to warrant his own article. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kind Tennis Fan: What band then? He is a member of two notable bands, which means he passes WP:NMUSIC criterion 6. GuzzyG (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GuzzyG I had in mind the group House of Pain. Yes, he has also been involved in the so-called "supergroup" La Coka Nostra. I'm not aware that La Coka Nostra have achieved any significant success. If they have, I stand to be corrected. We're all entitled to our views in the discussion and of course you're entitled to disagree with me and put forward the point of view that rapper Danny Boy deserves his own article. Regards. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:37, 3 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. Redirect is at editorial discretion. Sandstein 16:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tellinger[edit]

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

Entirely based on two primary sources. MrBill3 (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a basic search finds lots of sources. The article has been extensively edited by the subject and is in a terrible state, but that's no reason to delete it. Greenman (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted to an earlier version to undo the author's promotional additions, and added various sources. Greenman (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Extreme claims require good citations. What we have here is one or two overly fast to believe journalists, and a clear case of a conspiracy theory pusher. Fringe ideas require good coverage to show that the subject has generated coverage outside of conspiracy theory frienges. Nothing of the kind is provided here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme claims require good citations. - there is a difference between what the subject is claiming and what the article states, so your point is not applicable. Did you follow the sources? The Mail and Guardian articles hardly seem fast to believe, they are quite mocking in tone. The subject, as leader of a political party with fringe claims, has been written in mainstream media, and is widely recognised, so meets notability criteria. Greenman (talk) 07:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The revert to a better version is definitely an improvement. I am not seeing much sourcing to establish notability. He wrote some books, founded a fringe political party and ran unsuccessfully for office, what reliable sources have found him notable enough to cover substantially? MrBill3 (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete founding the Ubuntu Party isn't a sufficient claim of notability on its own. Everything else is WP:BLPFRINGE and doesn't have enough coverage/importance to meet those guidelines. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ubuntu Party as his most (if weakly) notable achievement. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hara (band)[edit]

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

No indication of notability, as established by multiple independent, reliable sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When I deproded this earlier today, I pointed out in the edit summary "Has an entry in 'Bibliografia națională română', essentially a Romanian dictionary of national biography - this can be found in Google Books. The nominator has not contacted me to point them to this. AfD should be a last resort, not an automatic reaction to a prod being removed. --Michig (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Bibliografia națională română (an obscure publication with around 1000 Google hits) is actually a bibliographic (not biographic) compendium of books published in Romania.
- But that's somewhat beside the point, which is whether quotable sources, as contemplated by WP:BAND point 1, exist. If you can demonstrate they do, better still if you can actually quote them, we'd be getting somewhere.
- As for the "automatic reaction" bit, come on. This has been sitting here without sources since 2004. Now is as good a time as any to have this discussion. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not as if there's any shortage of coverage out there. These from the first few pages of Google results searching on band and singer's name: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35].There's nothing to stop you looking for sources before starting an AfD discussion. --Michig (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, the sources I see so far are of a pretty wretched level. Hara lead singer baptizes his daughter (local paper, too), Hara lead singer recounts meeting very patriotic Romanians in the US (in some no-name church newsletter), Hara lead singer sends good wishes to students at his former high school (local paper, of course), Hara lead singer will try driving despite not having a license.
- Nothing here really indicates notability as a band, or is even quotable in an encyclopedic article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that the band gets so much coverage in so many sources indicates notability. --Michig (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC) Typically, you ignore the better sources, one stating (via Google Translate) "The band Hara released 6 LPs and the traditional Romanian carolin album Marlin, Dârlin - Pais'pe carols and a shout, which brought many awards from the media institutions (the best single - 2003, 2004, 2009, the most good creation - 2005, best album - 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009). In 2009, the band is also internationally acclaimed: The Ploua stele wins the 1st place (out of 50) at the prestigious "Song of the Year" creative contest - the Adult Contemporary section of the famous VH1 US musical channel. Success is repeated in 2013, at the same section, with the song Calling Out For You, Hara becoming the first Romanian band to have such a record." Now doesn't that sound like a notable band rather than one that as you claim has "no indication of notability"? --Michig (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, not when you actually try and verify the claims made. While Adevărul is generally a reliable newspaper, it seems they dropped the ball here.
    - I first tried to verify whether VH1 actually has something called "Song of the Year", with an "Adult Contemporary section". The closest I came was the VH1's Top 40 Videos of the Year - no mention of Hara. I also searched for any indication in English-language media that VH1 may have given any award of any nature to Hara in 2009 and 2013, but came up short. (Since VH1 is based in New York, it's reasonable to assume the US press would have picked up on something.)
    - In terms of the awards for best single - there's a vague mention of "media institutions" awarding these, but they're wholly untraceable.
    - Further down, the article mentions the Akademia Music Awards. A cursory search reveals that's simply a scam.
    - So it seems like Adevărul is recycling old PR material here, which basically falls apart when given any kind of scrutiny. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:36, 3 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. While there seems to be a lot of sources, it's near impossible to verify if they actually discuss the subject, in what depth, and if the citations match up to the content they're paired with. ansh 666 02:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taseer Bashir[edit]

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

Not much coverage in WP:RS. Almost sourced by self-crafted sources. Fails to verify per WP:V. Fails WP:GNG. Created by SPA User:Maria Jackson. Greenbörg (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources are cited but are they only passing references. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of cited sources are offline therefore it is very difficult to cross check. I have tried to find on the subject in online RS but to no avail so unless someone provide here online RS, delete vote from me. --Saqib (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AGF. If we take the cited references at face value then the subject appears to be notable. Just because references are not via google or in Urdu and not in English is not grounds for deletion. I think this one really needs some input from someone who is fluent in Urdu etc. Aoziwe (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoziwe:Article is not properly sourced. If they know then they must add which page of the newspaper discuss the subject. We can't just keep any article when we can't verify per WP:V. Störm (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overly promotional ("His services to humanity are formally recognised by a number of notables"), which leads me to not assume good faith in the sources, which I can't check. Sandstein 16:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jade M. Marlin[edit]

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

An advertorially toned BLP that does not meet WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. Significant RS coverage not found; clearly WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The two referenced interviews describe the subject's ambitions but do not indicate attained encyclopaedic notability. Nor are my searches finding better. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable fashion designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Cadre[edit]

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

This article was created by an apparent undisclosed paid editor. He seems to lack significant coverage in reliable sources, only being mentioned in connection with a couple television shows. Some of the references are unreliable blog posts, and others are videos of him dancing without substantial commentary. —Guan aco 09:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable reality TV contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:33, 3 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. If and when WP:TOOSOON no longer applies, this can possibly be WP:REFUNDed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kristine Zedek[edit]

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

It would appear that the subject of this article fails tests of notability WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and so on. The references here are all passing mentions in other contexts.

Anyone can create a social media site, and I would argue that in Twitter, Instagram and Facebook links do not assist an assertion of notability. The WP:A7 tag was removed by the page creator. I have done the due diligence and can find no evidence that Ms Zedek is a notable film or television actor. As always, I am happy to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (there is now ample independent sources to prov its notability including IMDB

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/chhath-rituals-bring-family-together/articleshow/61190103.cms

http://zeenews.india.com/india/the-chhath-puja-song-is-back-will-make-you-homesick-again-2051368.html
) She acted in a Tamil film Chennai 600028.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlbu9Gf-juE

--Rashkeqamar (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rashkeqamar: If you're going to argue that subjects are notable, you need to be familiar with what our general notability guideline says, as well as our guidelines on WP:NOTABILITY. The fact that the subject has an IMDb presence does nothing to establish notability, the video clip you added does nothing to establish notability, and the two passing mentions Zedek has in the TOI and India.com articles do nothing to establish notability. Notability means that mainstream sources have written about the subject in depth, (no, interviews don't count) or that the subject meets one of our other criteria, like WP:NACTOR. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NACTOR and WP:TOOSOON. The role in linked movie, Chennai 600028, does not appear to be major. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sufficient reliable sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding of Prince Leka II and Elia Zaharia[edit]

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

This was not a notable event by any stretch of imagination. Both the groom and the bride are notable in their own right, but they are not nearly notable enough for their wedding to be a notable event. We do have articles on some weddings, involving members of reigning royal families. In this case, however, the groom is the son of a man who was the son of a man who was king briefly. So only one person in the entire extended family was ever king of Albania, he reigned for only ten years, and he had to leave the country 80 years ago. That makes his grandson's wedding a rather ordinary society event. Thousands of weddings of film stars, musicians, sportsmen, politicians, businessmen etc. would be at least as notable as this event. The lack of any real sources also makes it clear that is passed by unnoticed in media. Jeppiz (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Elia Zaharia's article may already have too much information on this wedding, but there is no reason to have a stand alone article on the wedding.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A wedding in this obscure European ex-royal dynasty can't remotely be regarded as an event having lasting historical significance per WP:EVENT. Fiachra10003 (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - it's a bit much for ex-royalty, although the invitation list makes it a major event. Bearian (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Divam[edit]

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

Appears to be little more than a foreign word definition. Unreferenced. Derek Andrews (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC) Derek Andrews (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 10:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this looks like it should be on Wiktionary, not here. I see quite a few references in books, but not seeing much via Google as far as why this concept merits an encyclopedia article. = paul2520 (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT or possibly WP:NOTDICT. It's unclear to me whether this is meant to be a word definition (which is out of scope) or a given name. The latter would be in scope, but the current content is not really helpful for creating a WP:WPNAMES article. Cnilep (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew J. Sordoni III[edit]

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

Appears to be promotional, not finding significant sources establishing notability. Author removed PROD tag. Home Lander (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

very weak keep Seems almost like fluff but there are a number of references and reliable sources. This article is of more value than some porn films or video game articles in wikipedia. AGrandeFan (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little reliable source information showing up for this individual, and nothing to indicate he meets notability. He does run a family foundation and shares a name with an art gallery at a notable university, but they appear to have been founded by an earlier family member. One possible claim of notability (founder of Chiaroscuro Records) in the article appears to be a factual error, since references show it to have been founded by a Hank O'Neal. Overall, it doesn't look like the subject means WP:GNG.PohranicniStraze (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's helpful to go back to general notability guidelines. While Mr Sordoni doubtless had a successful career and seems to have had positive influence as a philanthropist, there seems to be a dearth of sources which would a) discuss him in any depth, and b) be sufficiently independent from him. Yes, there are references and sources in the article, but they are passing mentions, mass produced/insight free (e.g. listing in databases of directors), or linked to his organizations, and thus not independent. I took a guick look in Google and didn't find others. Therefore we can't write an article about him. Martinp (talk) 20:59, 3 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. As Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I'm closing this WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE per WP:SNOW, and adding salt to ensure a well-meaning new editor doesn't require a re-run of this down the line. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Louise[edit]

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

Deletion requested by subject via OTRS (Ticket#2017110310004581. Notability is borderline; per WP:BBLP deletion is probably warranted. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page created about me without my knowledge. I no longer model and this information is inaccurate in any case. Not noteworthy. Nlduk89 (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The fact that we have a request to delete this article on a person who never passed any notability test shows we really need to look at tightening methods of article creation and making notability a clearer restriction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. We almost always delete or merge articles about runners-up of reality shows. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not even sure that "UK's Next Top Plus Model" is an actual thing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Now please go find and add those sources, or this will be back at AfD and righteously. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthon Berg[edit]

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

Inadequate references for notability: in order: being used as an example in a book about something else , a listing in a directory, an advertorial in an Indian newspaper, and two pages from the company website. DGG ( talk ) 13:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Comment, but hang on, they make those yummy little chocolate bottles .... mmmmmm chocolate and liqueurs:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, drat! although the danishwp has had an article for over 10 years, it is unreferenced. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AfD is not cleanup, the nomination looks like a {{unreferenced}} tag. Further, google books and google scholar searches give many results. Some of these results are textbooks using Berg in case studies in law, finance, and economics - these seem like very reliable sources to me. If no one else does, I'll try to add some of these in the next few days. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- EXcept in BLP cases, the absence or dearth of references is not a ground for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is a very well-known brand and plenty of sources can be found.Ramblersen (talk) 18:25, 9 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 FM Belfast. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World Champion Records[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; source searches are only providing short mentions. Could be redirected to FM Belfast. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or a redirect to FM Belfast would work. Not enough to stand on its own. South Nashua (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FM Belfast. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FM Belfast - appears to be no notability independent of the owners/founders. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:10, 10 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DaDuDiDo[edit]

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

Fails basic WP:GNG guideline. Non notable film sourced with only self sources. My attempt to find sources yielded no any reliable sources that reported about this — Ammarpad (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self promotional, non notable, unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.moreno72 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Ammarpad (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Ammarpad (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My attempts to locate significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (From WP:GNG; emphasis not mine) via Google News have failed, as evidenced by this search. Offline sources are unlikely, given the show's release date. Google Books sources are also unlikely. Most of the eight sources listed there only contained passing mentions, and all contents were far from what is considered to be significant coverage. Easy delete. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 03:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete dubious notability if only source provided is youtube. LibStar (talk) 07:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Per J947. Also did a search. Galobtter (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Promotional, conflict of interest non notable film. FailsWP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are some Malaysian news sites that have coverage on the topic. However, it seems to be the case of mere trivial mention and no in-depth coverage was found. I think it should be deleted for now.Dial911 (talk) 06:28, 6 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 16:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus (dubstep musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Except for this, I've been unable to locate secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 4 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rollz[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate any secondary sources to support notability. This interview offers some details, but was posted on a personal blog. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSICBIO fish&karate 10:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Gordon (veteran)[edit]

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

Walter Gordon was a junior NCO with E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II. Carson served in all three major actions involving E Company during the war. Neither his rank (corporal) nor his awards (highest Bronze Star) make him notable under WP:SOLDIER. After returning home, Gordon became an independent oil and gas lease broker. There is no significant coverage of his post-war life. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- as a jr NCO, does not meet WP:SOLDIER. The coverage is routine. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - looking at newspapers.com results, Gordon is frequently mentioned in small-town society type articles, particularly by his friend Frank Dietlein at the Opelousas Daily World in Louisiana. None of these articles are about Gordon, but are rather little snippets and stories about life around town. In one case his wife and (I think) sister-in-law appear in a garden photo. This is a reflection of his being wealthy, although his WWII service is mentioned in one or two of the articles. I imagine other local newspapers might have more about him, but his name is common and I didn't find anything worth adding to the article. If anyone wants to make a more detailed effort, I think it is possible but not overly likely that more can be found. As with other E-company figures at AfD, this isn't meant to be a !vote, just a statement that outside of the BoB universe I don't see strong evidence of prominence. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep his notability is long-lasting and spread out over varied reliable secondary sources. WP:SOLDIER is irrelevant when a subject meets WP:GNG guidelines, which he easily does. Rockypedia (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Notability is solely from being part of the Band of Brothers - but there is so much written about them that it leads to GNG passes, in which case subsidiary notabillity guidelines like SOLDIER are irrelevant. Personally I'd like to see more widespread coverage (hence "weak"), but I can't argue with the N. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:40, 10 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 16:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melody B. Choi[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON and does not meet WP:ENT yet. Her film roles are either minor/supporting roles or if she did star in anything it was for a non-Wikipedia notable film. Note that even though the bio said she starred as Mary in Santa Paws, she did not have poster block billing. Sources provided are mainly databases like IMDb. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no prominent roles in terms of billing so it looks like delete but there is a claim at imdb that she won a Young Artists Award as well as two other Young Artist nominationsAtlantic306 (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like she won one in the 32nd Young Artist Awards for Gunless but she did not have a billing block appearance in that film. But yes, she did get one. Is that enough to keep her around? [36] It's not an award at the level of WP:ANYBIO though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Think it does count as an anybio award as they are regarded as the young actor's oscar but to pass there still needs significant cov in reliable sources and a quick search found no rs Atlantic306 (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That might be enough to keep her around then. Let me see if I can fashion an awards section for her. Still having trouble finding coverage on her other roles. Saw a book that said she was nominated for Santa Paws. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if a person does have a potential ANYBIO pass on the basis of an award (which is uncertain in the case of the Young Artist Awards), that still doesn't hand them an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts them from having to have any reliable source coverage in media — even the question of whether or not an award is notable enough to ANYBIO its nominees or recipients depends on the extent to which the media do or don't cover that award's nomination announcements and winner presentations as news. What I'm not seeing in this article, however, is any strong evidence of reliable source coverage about her at all — the article is referenced almost entirely to blogs, IMDb, primary sources and a Twitter tweet, and the only two acceptable sources both just namecheck her existence — one of them, further, solely in the caption of the promotional still, and not anywhere at all in the actual article — without being even slightly about her or her performances. Even if a person does have a potentially valid claim to passing a notability criterion, their includability still depends on the extent to which the article can or cannot be properly sourced — an article does not get to rest on crap sourcing just because a notability claim has been asserted — but the sourcing here isn't cutting it at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat the IMDb photos and sources provided so far are merely to verify that she was in the films and shows presented, as well as the events, so yes, they are primaries for the most part. They aren't helping much for her general notability. Also, if you're questioning whether we can use IMDb that way, please discuss at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_IMDb#IMDB_photos_on_set.3F AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete It is high time we started to use reliable sources for Wikipedia, not IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies, in the event this proves to have been WP:TOOSOON. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon_Napier[edit]

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

The person, Gordon Napier, seems to lack notability. As a director, he seems to be unknown outside of Scottish programs for promoting young talent and hasn't yet been recognized (or noted) by the public and the media. All (but one?) sources are publications by film schools or young talent programs.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A NOTYET situation, presumably. I'm not seeing enough for a GNG pass at this point. IMDb fare. Carrite (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The sources found do need to be added to the article. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yaqub Mirza[edit]

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

No coverage for him. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in news refs like WSJ [37] and the following: [38] [39]. Some WSJ articles are subscription-only, so cannot be viewed in general search results unless Googled separately. Mar4d (talk) 06:28, 4 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Hasan Cemendtaur[edit]

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Terribly fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 08:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources and even with that notability is on the boarder and for me falls on the not notable side. - Pmedema (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supna Zaidi[edit]

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:AUTHOR. Marokwitz (talk) 08:28, 5 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UpCodes[edit]

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

A directory-like entry on a private company that launched in 2016. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is PR-driven material based on WP:SPIP sources such as: "Q&A: UpCodes co-founder Scott Reynolds on a new way to look at ... Construction Dive-Aug 23, 2017". WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Besides the Construction Dive article which does seem to be a WP:SPIP source, there's 5 other seemingly quality sources that are independent from the company: TechCrunch, YCombinator, Curbed (owned by Vox Media), American Institute of Architects and ArchDaily.

In addition, there are many similar articles of companies in a similar space (and maybe other spaces, but I'm most familiar with construction-tech these days). Examples include Fieldwire, PlanGrid, FieldLens, Procore and I'm sure there's a lot more. These seem to be of similar encyclopedic content and with a similar amount and quality of citation material. Zephyrus Tavvier (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I have an affiliation with the company in this article. Zephyrus Tavvier (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not for the first time, article need to be both "independent from the company" and also "intellectually independent". For example, the NYT might publish, verbatim, a press release. While the NYT is an independent secondary source, independent from the company, the article fails the criteria for establishing notability as it is not intellectually independent. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References fails the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- TechCrunch doesn't do it for me. Y Combinator is a sponsor and therefore not independent. It is, however a huge user of wikipedia. The claimed 61,000 page views a month says nothing about the notability of the site or company. ~~Alexa, by the way reports no use of the site, which make~~ a founder's claim suspect in my view. TOOSOON. Rhadow (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, fair point about TechCrunch and YCombinator's relation to it. I suppose the American Institute of Architects would be the strongest independent source. In terms of the traffic numbers, I think Alexa does report use of the site (https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/up.codes) and here's SimilarWeb (https://www.similarweb.com/website/up.codes). Zephyrus Tavvier (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment -- the sources presented are far too short of meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. For example, Am Institute of Architects that the article's creator presents as the "strongest independent source" is a republished press release, even including a quote from Upcdes:

UpCodes: Building Code Compliance Made Simple: The UpCodes database streamlines code information to help firms save time, money, and avoid construction mistakes!
"We are putting our heads together to reduce all friction in locating code. Construction codes are a large corpus of information. Increasing access and simplicity to the system provides the stimulus for innovation!" –UpCodes! link

Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M.J. Khan[edit]

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

Covered by the single source. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Störm: They're different articles but from the same newspaper. Generally city council members of large cities (Houston would be one of them) are notable. I'll hit up Google Books for possible sources on M.J. Khan. I would be surprised if there weren't any... WhisperToMe (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curiel, Jonathan. Islam in America. I.B.Tauris, March 30, 2015. ISBN 1848855990, 9781848855991. p. 126. This page talks about Khan in detail. Is this sufficient? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WhisperToMe Thanks for your response. I think it is enough. Störm (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hafeez Malik[edit]

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:NPROF. Störm (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:AUTHOR; multiple books that are widely held. Here's worldcat identities; his top three books are held by 490, 460, and 360 libraries worldwide, respectively. Decent amount of citations by others. Reviews are likely to be available. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, he also has a good number of citations under Scholar. [40] Mar4d (talk) 06:41, 4 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Riffat Manasia-Oberhaus[edit]

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

Little coverage with dubious notability. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourced by a single website whose link is broken. Written by a SPA whose 3rd edit was creating this article...likely a vanity page. Agricola44 (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 5 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 Giovanni Kiyingi. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joy of an African (Esanyu Ly'omufilika)[edit]

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

Following this discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amakondeere which resulted in merging, I brought this other non notable album for deletion. It fails all guideline points of WP:NALBUM. And the reason I didn't say merge this too, is actually there is nothing to merge, also it was already mentioned in his bio. Participants should please look at the article and the above discussion before merge vote. — Ammarpad (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on Giovanni Kiyingi. Vorbee (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Ammarpad (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Fails WP:NALBUM all the relevant information is already in the article nothing left to merge. Domdeparis (talk) 16:41, 7 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zurain Imam[edit]

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

Little coverage in WP:RS. Can't write without WP:OR. Much is written by the subject to promote herself. See User:Zurain. Störm (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly a WP:OR violation; an un-sourced autobiography with no clear claim of notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kamran Farid[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Little coverage for him in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Alternatively, redirect to Edible Arrangements. Störm (talk) 06:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep. Note this closed Keep in May 2017. He is notable for Edible Arrangements, Muslim education, and a number of anti-discrimination lawsuits he's been involved in that received coverage: yacht club: [41] [42]. School taxation: [43], cameras: [44] (he also found a dead seal recently, but that's trivial - [45]).Icewhiz (talk) 09:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Icewhiz. Also featured on YFS Magazine [46], and many news refs [47]. Mar4d (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Störm (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashfaq Ishaq[edit]

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

Dubious notability with no coverage in WP:RS. Can't write without WP:OR. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article. Grand claims require reliable sourcing, which is totally lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:17, 4 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 En Vogue#2017: Electric Café and touring. Delete and merge is not possible for reasons of attribution. Sandstein 16:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Café (En Vogue album)[edit]

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

Delete and merge - Fails WP:FUTUREALBUM and WP:NALBUM. Also, the release date has been changed so many times on this page from "second quarter of 2017"[48], to simply "2017"[49], to "third quarter of 2017"[50], to "December 8, 2017"[51]. All of the release dates were un-sourced. They are no confirmed track listing for the album, no album art, no confirmed release date, and no further information about the album. The "album history" of the page has nothing significant that deserves its own page and/or stands out from the En Vogue#2017: Electric Café and touring. The sources provided rely heavily on Youtube and Facebook, and it does not have any secondary sources. Frankly, I think this page should be merged with the En Vogue page. Horizonlove (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with En Vogue#2017: Electric Café and touring. I do not believe this upcoming release qualifies as one of the "very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects" (WP:FUTUREALBUM) that warrants a standalone article without a tracklist or release date. gongshow talk 06:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. The entire article is speculation/gossip about the possible release that is not encyclopedic in nature. No prejudice against re-creation when the album is released. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 3 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Lee Young[edit]

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

Non notable and just plain negative BLP. Primary sourcing only, no secondary sources, no significant coverage. Article has an advocacy feel, and just serves as an anchor for the link farm. The thing has been hanging out since 2005 without gaining sourcing. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I wouldn't say negative BLP - he was convicted - if at all the article positively reflects his anti-death penalty advocacy. In my BEFORE - he seems borderline notable (including coverage (TV review) in the Netherlands - [52]). If and when actually executed (which seems possibly soon) - he'll probably have quite a bit more coverage. However the poor article quality, the link farm, and lack of good sourcing - has me leaning to delete. HEY is possibly possible here if there are more sources (I don't have good newspaper archive access - which would be relevant).Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per writing, per WP:GNG. Sources are third party.BabbaQ (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Tragic, if he actually was innocent, but unless reliable sources dictate that would have lasting ramifications that tragedy does nothing for notability. I don't know what per writing is supposed to mean (the fact that someone wrote the article?) but, whatever it's intended purpose was, the answer almost certainly would not convince me to switch my !vote.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Nothing even close to notability, and anything that is not pure news coverage is clearly lacking in reliability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete committing crime, bring convicted, and sentenced to death sans WP:INDEPTH sources ≠ notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a police blotter or a collection of true crime stories. Being known for being on death row is the very definition of BLP-1E. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 7 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. A Wiktionary link already exists at Edgy. Sandstein 16:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edgy (adjective)[edit]

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

Obviously fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 19:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wiktionary per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The solution for terms like this which have Wiktionary coverage and no reasonable target Wikipedia is to soft redirect to the sister project.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wiktionary, agreed. See more specifically WP:POINTWIKT within policy WP:DICDEF, which recommends this procedure for Wikipedia pages "which could potentially be proper articles but are dictionary-like stubs at the moment". If material for an encyclopedic article is later found, a soft redirect will have left the page history in place; no information will be lost. Nor does a soft redirect discourage re-creation of the page.

I've checked that the Wiktionary pages edgy and troll exist, although neither has definitions corresponding to the Internet usages described in the present Wikipedia page. When the attestations required by Wiktionary are found for those senses, they can be added to the relevant pages at any time.

—Syrenka V (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wiktionary Agree with two commentors. Pretty clear from above. Lee Vilenski(talk) 12:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Carrite (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This isn't a place where we need a soft redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not just one but several policies and guidelines justify a soft redirect for dictionary definitions in cases where they might be re-created as Wikipedia articles. Besides WP:POINTWIKT within WP:DICDEF (= WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary!) as above, also check out the section Soft redirects from Wikipedia to a sister project within the guideline WP:SISTER, and the section WP:ATD-TRANS within the policy WP:Deletion policy. A soft redirect is the ideal solution in such cases, in that it deters re-creation of the page as a mere dictionary definition, and refers readers to Wiktionary, yet sets few barriers to re-creation as a proper encyclopedic article if sources for such are ever found.

—Syrenka V (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except this is already a disambiguated page name, the definition on this page has no references and isn't mentioned on Wiktionary, and there's no reason to think this would be re-created or that "Readers search for it on Wikipedia" (page created October 27, and 59 total views since then, many of which would have been AfD participants). I'm neutral as to Edgy being a soft redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just now added this definition (slightly reworded as "Exhibiting behavior that is disconcerting or alarming in an effort to troll others") to the Wiktionary article edgy, with four attestations spanning the period from 2012 to 2017. They weren't at all difficult to find. I've also already made the Wikipedia article Edgy a soft redirect, with a hatnote to its former target; it had been a hard redirect to Edge (video game), which was not especially intuitive or helpful compared to the Wiktionary definition, but is probably worth a hatnote.

It's true that readers are unlikely to use "Edgy (adjective)" as a search term on Wikipedia—they would use "edgy" instead—but that doesn't mean they aren't searching for encyclopedic information on this word, or that the page is unlikely to be re-created. There is definitely an encyclopedic concept here; the only reason an encyclopedic article meeting the standards of WP:WORDISSUBJECT within WP:DICDEF cannot be written at present is that (AFAICT) primary source material on this term hasn't been synthesized into secondary sources. If you don't believe the primary sources contain "information on the social or historical significance of the term", check out the search I used to find attestations for the dictionary definition: a Google News search on "edgy troll internet".

I suppose there might be some question whether the focus is really on the term edgy or on the concept of Edginess—similar to what WP:WORDISSUBJECT says about No worries (focus on the term) versus Truthiness (focus on the concept). But the primary sources tend to show that the term is important to the people who go to such lengths to get it applied to themselves; I don't think it was an accident that the article created was Edgy (adjective) rather than Edginess, or that the likelihood of re-creation after deletion would be negligible. The cost of a soft redirect is very low even if I'm wrong about this; and if I'm right, the creation of a soft redirect will save a lot of trouble in the future.

—Syrenka V (talk) 06:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We already have a link to Wiktionary from Edgy. We don't need to keep convoluted titles such as this when the term that people are going to use to search already gets them where they want to go. --Michig (talk) 07:16, 10 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ntfrmhre[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC. A large number of low-quality references but no claims of significance or importance, nor of any of the references being sufficient to meet WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another article on a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. gongshow talk 18:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Q-Saalschütz summation formula[edit]

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

WP:NOT a math textbook; this is a bunch of formulas with no context and no claim of importance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heine's summation formula[edit]

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

WP:NOT a math textbook; this is a bunch of formulas with no context and no claim of importance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bring Back the Bees[edit]

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

Not a sufficiently notable hashtag activism campaign; the term is only used by advertising campaigns and not mentioned in discussion of physical demonstrations.

A redirect to Friends of the Earth may or may not be appropriate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep-I added sources covering the campaign, including USA Today coverage of the issue, Chicago Tribune and Washington Post coverage of the effects of the campaign.Trackinfo (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 10:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on improvements made by Trackinfo Burley22 (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I agree that Trackinfo's improvements already include enough sourcing to justify a keep, I've added further sources from Lifehacker, CNN, Forbes, HuffPost, Popular Science, and even Snopes. I've also added further text to the page, particularly from the Snopes article.

—Syrenka V (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus is any issues with the content can be addressed through further editing and development. postdlf (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of former members of AKB48[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A non encyclopedic cross categorisation and an indiscriminate amount of information. Very few entries have encyclopedia articles. Does not meet WP:LISTN as the topic has not received significant RS coverage from independent, 3rd party sources. First AfD closed as no-consensus in 2013, so I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Moscow Connection (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Everything in the list can be easily and reliably sourced. The list was split from the main AKB48 article some years ago cause the article was getting too large. Given the cult status of the girl group and the abundance of reliable sources discussing which member left and when, the list must be present in Wikipedia in one way or another. (As an alternative, you can consider merging it to the "List of AKB48 members". It will be safer there.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article presently has 41 links to standalone biography articles. I myself don't view this number as "very few", as stated in the nomination. The article would benefit from copy editing, but it qualifies as per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:AKB48 members. Also meets WP:LISTPURP as a valuable information source and navigational aid, as evidenced in part by the 3,551 page views it has received in the last thirty days. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreed, it's very well linked through to articles, meets WP:NOTDUP per Category:AKB48 members, meets WP:AOAL for all the additional information and context and contains 49 references to date. I really can't see why this was brought back to Afd despite the previous close. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim. A lot of the details should be removed. This should really be a simple list of the name of the member and the time they were in this group. If you want to split between graduated members and other members, you could but it doesn't need to be split by Team as members have bounced around all sorts of teams. No election results as those should go to the individual members where notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment -- There are entire sections that are uncited and contain no wiki links, such as:

At a very rough estimate, it appears that the list contains about 260 names. Given that 40 names are blue links, that makes perhaps 15% of the names on the list as having stand-alone articles. Some of those that I looked at do not appear to be independently notable, such as Sumire Satō. Pageviews are not generally taken into account when determining notability on Wikipedia.

Judging by the related article, the bands and their singles are notable, but the performers, out of a rotating cast of dozens (hundreds?), are unlikely to be so, with perhaps a few exceptions. Combining the names into a list is an indiscriminate collection of information and does not have encyclopedic value in the current form of the list. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Some of those that I looked at do not appear to be independently notable, such as Sumire Satō."
Sumire Sato is notable (WP:GNG at least: Google News search, [53], [54], [55], etc.), as are many more members mentioned on the list. By the way, she also was / has been a member of 2 independently notable musical groups. It's just that there aren't many people on the English Wikipedia willing to write a proper article about her and everyone else. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually prefer to have one list of members (including the former ones) and to have an additional template with the current roster (something as small as possible, with smaller font size etc., maybe collapsible) you can put in the main AKB48 article. But I don't think here is the right place to discuss it. Cause you just want to delete the information completely, that's not right. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we cannot call 41 items very few with a wave of hand, this contradicts nom statement wbo claimed very few have articles. Second although many don't have article, one of the purpose of list is development. Non linked titles in lists (and DAB pages) serve almost similar function as redlink, because they help overall development of Wikipedia. I said this as addendum to what has already been confirmed by many people above that the contents is indeed verifiable and referred in RS. For any other concern it can be trimmed or reorganized but deletion is not solution here. — Ammarpad (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on the point of development. The link supplied, WP:PURPLIST also includes:

"Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list that consists entirely of red links and does not serve an informational purpose; especially a list of missing topics) should be in either the project or user space, not the main space."

Having 85% nn names does not serve the readers and is indiscriminate / WP:OR, especially when no citations are offered. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article was already stubbed down to remove the copyvio; I've revdel'd the copyvio from FindAGrave and the earlier copyvio from a Wordpress blog. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh Vardhan Bahuguna[edit]

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

Flagged as being in violation of copyright six months ago, and has yet to be sufficiently revised. Confirmed as being copied from the website FindAGrave ([56]), and being in violation of that website's copyright ([57], Section 2). The article could still be revised, but has gone far too long without it to keep the copyrighted content. I am Quibilia. (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no clear indication that this person passes any notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Smmurphy. Stub down to avoid copyvio. Delete. Copyvio. Article is a mess (lack of wikilinks, long paragraphs, etc.). He doesn't pass SOLDIER. His claim to fame comes from mountaineering - however there are quite a few climbers who did en-route to the Everest. a BEFORE does show some coverage - often in conjunction with his brother - Maj Jai Vardhan Bahuguna - who did in similar circumstances in 1985. Or in conjunction with the first Indians to reach the top (e.g. [58] - 3 got there, he turned back). If he passes notability as mountaineer (something I haven't generally assessed) - it is a borderline pass, and I doubt this would pass even an a clean article with no copyvio per WP:NOTMEMORIAL.Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A recipient of Padma Shri award.Shyamsunder (talk) 08:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability. WP:NOTMEMORIAL, applies. Kierzek (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is actually a lot of coverage of this individual under the name "Harsh Bahuguna" (for instance, google books gives [59]). I'm concerned about the copyright issues and endorse stubification or even speedy delete if necessary, but the individual himself seems to me to be suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep The padma shri shows notability but WP:BIO1E also applies. All the coverage is related to his death in the 1971 International Expedition to the himalayas so that would be a preferable article to be merged in, except it doesn't exist yet. Galobtter (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is 2Es in this context - he failed to reach the top in one expedition (in which 3 other Indians did for the first time) in 1965, and died in a subsequent attempt in 1971.Icewhiz (talk) 10:13, 8 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Hirschhorn[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. The subject is only notable for being a CEO of DogVacay; the coverage that comes up is not independent of the company and/or WP:SPIP, such as "DogVacay's Aaron Hirschhorn on how founders can control the ... TechCrunch-May 15, 2016" [60] or "Rover.com acquires Santa Monica dog-sitting start-up DogVacay ... Los Angeles Times-Mar 29, 2017 Last fall, Aaron Hirschhorn was telling investors that his Santa Monica start-up DogVacay had quarterly sales that tripled..." [61]. The company was acquired earlier this year, so he may not stay on as a CEO, so a redirect is not appropriate, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks sources about Hirschhorn.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dogvacay as a reasonable search term, per WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment -- I'm generally not in favour of BLP redirects to a company name. The company was recently sold, so he may not be associated with it in the future. The company could be merged / the article moved, and the redirect would not be appropriate. He's otherwise a non notable individual, there's no need to preserve the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Specifically lacking reliable sources the cover needed biographical details on the subject fails WP:BIO, GNG, and BLP. Coverage consists of WP:SPIP sources that significantly cover and promote the subject's startup DogVacay, not this subject, hence notability is not inherited from association with a company. Also, the WP:SPIP sources indicate this page is intended to be another advertising platform for subject's company (and possibly the subject as well) - Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO. I also agree that a redirect in this instance would not be appropriate because the company has been acquired by another entity. More acquisitions could make this situation even more tenuous. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:05, 8 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Ex-Gay[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. This is an article about a website, namely beyondexgay.com. It is not an article about a movement, a group, or a concept; that article is already present at Ex-ex-gay. This is just an article about a non-notable website; it is so non-notable, that Alexa doesn't have enough data to rank it, and the home page copyright lists only 2007-2013. One might suggest a merge to Ex-ex-gay, but there is nothing here worth saving, with the possible exception of the url itself, which could be added to External links. Mathglot (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: article creator and all contributors having over 2% of total bytes have been notifed. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Regarding the url as External link: per WP:EL#What to link I don't see any reason to mention the website in Ex-ex-gay#External links, but I don't see a reason to exclude it either, if someone wishes to have it. There's already completely dead websites there, so why not this one. Mathglot (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not seem to be notable, nothing here that needs saving through merging. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see the sources supporting notability.★Trekker (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sexual-orientation-alteration survivors' movement is notable, this website is not. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marc de Swaan Arons[edit]

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

Article has been given almost 5 years to try and improve but is simply a repository for promotional COI editing at the moment. There's little if any evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG. Being mentioned in national newspapers, or writing the occasional article isn't enough. Neither is being one of 36 people to get a 'Brand Leadership Award'. Time for the article to go. Sionk (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 5 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.