Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 November	1 December >

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} 08:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tasty (Buzzfeed)[edit]

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

per WP:WEBSITE. Barely any coverage other than its social medias which appears clear promotionalism. Mullone (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or rather Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. This is a prime example of artificially giving the illusion of notability by the number of citations, which for the most part are useless for establishing notability. Cleaning it up would be more work than starting from scratch. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above. the obvious merge target is BuzzFeed, which doesn't need any of this content. The disambiguated page-name isn't suitable for a redirect either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - above reasons. Ventric (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Johnson (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. All sources are press releases or directory style listings. The nearest to notability is probably the Evesham Journal but even that appears to be parroting a press release. Local lad made good is fine, but it doesn'tget close to notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - purely promotional. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked all of the refs. They are all promotional fluff, there is nothing that indicated notability. Szzuk (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Tang[edit]

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

This article fails to meet Wikipedia's guidelines on biographies of living persons. Sinusulit (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC) — Sinusulit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep – Any chess player at Grandmaster level should be automatically notable, just as any Olympic-level athlete is presumed notable. See ongoing proposal at WT:WikiProject Chess#Notability of chess players. — JFG ^talk 22:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Grandmasters should be presumed notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grandmasters are notable by virtue of being grandmasters. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above Thalium (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we have a SNOW close. South Nashua (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SNOW. I won't perform a non-admin closure, because as the creator of the article I'm not an uninvolved editor. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is high time we stop presuming noability in the face of a clear lack of sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename so a disambig page is at Andrew Tang; this is a fairly common name and there is no primary topic, WP:TWODABS. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the longstanding consensus that Grandmasters are notable; here is confirmation he has successfully earned the title.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mindi Messmer[edit]

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

Messmer does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements WP:N for a politician / sub-national legislator which states that, "Sub-national legislators: Any current or former member of a sub-national legislative body, where the subnational unit is either not a part of a larger subnational unit or where the population of the subnational unit is at least 5,000,000; and either the member represents at least 500,000 people, or the average member in the body represents at least 250,000 people." -- Messmer is one of 400 state representatives in New Hampshire, where the entire population of the State of New Hampshire is only approximately 1.3 million people; this means that she does not represent at least 250,000 people required by Wikipedia, i.e., Messmer represents approximately 3,250 people as a state representative (1.3 million divided by 400 equals 3,250 per representative). 204.58.32.254 (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the AfD for the IP. ansh 666 22:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination is citing Wikipedia:Notability (politicians) which is a failed proposal. The actual notability guideline is at WP:NPOL, which reads: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I understand that that New Hampshire's legislators is unusually large. However, we generally do have article about state legislatures on here and I think it meets the standard for politicians as mentioned above. That said, the article needs a major rewrite because it sounds like a campaign ad.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ [Revote struck]. Article does not meet notability requirements. Wikipedia User Patar knight cites WP:NPOL, but fails to mention section three which states: "3.Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"." Here, the subject has not been covered in significant reliable sources . . . just being a candidate for Congress is not enough to meet the notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.32.254 (talk)

NPOL #3's provision regarding "elected local officials" refers to politicians at the municipal level of government, such as mayors, city councillors, county supervisors or school board trustees. Members of a state legislature are state-level officeholders who are covered by NPOL #1. Also, the nomination statement at the top of the page came from you in the first place, even though somebody else technically had to complete the nomination process for you — so you can still comment in the discussion if you wish, but you do not get to cast a second "vote" in addition to your original nomination statement. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As has been noted above, WP:NPOL does not guarantee or rule out notability in cases like these. Keep by WP:SIGCOV to which NPOL also refers. gidonb (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be a politically motivated attempt going to remove this person's page. Person is a candidate for the US Congress, and this page seems targeted for vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.174.7 (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NPOL btw to the ip above, a state elected official is not "an elected local official". Coolabahapple (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Members of a state legislature have a straight, clean pass of WP:NPOL #1. Our inclusion criteria for state legislators are not governed by the number of votes the person did or didn't receive or the population size of their electoral district — that was proposed once at the place the nominator cites, yes, but the proposal failed and that document does not represent an accurate summary of Wikipedia's actual inclusion standard for state legislators. Our actual inclusion standard for state legislators, rather, is spelled out at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges, point #1: they're in as long as their holding of the office can be properly verified, regardless of the population of their individual district — this does need some sourcing improvement and content modification, yes, but it does satisfy the actual inclusion standard. For the record, I've also filed an RM request at Wikipedia talk:Notability (politicians) to have the page moved to a title that makes its inactive status clearer, so that the existing title (which is deceptive, as it does sound like the title of an active notability guideline rather than a failed one) can be repointed to WP:NPOL instead. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Members of a state or provincial legislature pass WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as mentioned above, the proposal cited for the deletion was a failed proposal. Considering how huge the New Hampshire House is (it has more members than the US house in a state with only 2 members in the US house), I have always wondered if it really makes sense to consider all members of the New Hampshire house notable. However, if we are going to back down from such a view, we need to come up with a new standard, and apply it across the board, not start picking off articles on specific individuals. On the whole though, I think the top ranked sub-national legislatures, at least in countries that are federal in nature as opposed to unitary, thus those in the legislative bodies of India, Nigeria, Germany, the United States, Mexico, Brazil and several other countries, is a reasonable level to cut off, while holding most candidates non-notable. Elected officials will get coverage for their actions in the legislature. I do have to point out that some countries, such as Ghana, we have a major lack of articles even on current members of the national legislature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the New Hampshire State House, due to its unusually large size compared to the state population, should be an exception to the presumed notability in WP:NPOL. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the idea of a special New Hampshire-specific exception to the rule that would pertain in all 49 other states and all Canadian provinces and all Australian states and on and so forth. Given that we don't really have very many New Hampshire-based editors making a particularly active effort to get all the redlinks blued in very promptly, I fail to see why the number of seats in that body needs to be treated as a special problem that requires special exceptions to NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Science, Trade & Technology[edit]

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

Setting aside this article's other issues, from its very first revision it has contained the line "Note: This university is completely fictional." Even if this is a real institution, there doesn't seem to be too much to salvage here. Nick Number (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a blatant hoax (WP:G3); the author explicitly admitted to creating a hoax article. It doesn’t seem to be discussing a university from a work of fiction. 165.91.13.168 (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not Sure- It has a website, but beyond that I can't really verify anything. The website looks legit, but I just don't know, I don't think speedy delete is appropriate because someone may come up with more information that would allow us determine if it exists or not.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lack of sources to verrify its status.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One should not attach any significance to the fact that the infobox in the first revision contained the words "Note: This university is completely fictional." That was copied directly from the "University of Illyria" example in Template:Infobox university, probably without understanding what it meant or why it was there. The article is not a hoax. The institute is an affiliated college of National University, albeit not an important or well-known one. As to the article's other issues, feel free to gut it of anything unsourced, unintelligible, or unencyclopedic - we at WikiProject Bangladesh do that all the time to articles about educational institutions in Bangladesh. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, that does make sense. Its purpose was difficult to fathom. Nick Number (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a hoax, and we generally assume universities and colleges are notable and articles are kept on that precedence.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- as long as we are sure it exists then we should keep.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a higher education institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HEWI London[edit]

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

This entire article is a PR advert and this (the article creator) seems to suggest he's working for them, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the link-content disappears then here's an archived version - https://web.archive.org/web/20171116232711/https://medium.com/@nialllazenby/dolce-gabbana-mens-deep-purple-velvet-blazer-on-hewi-london-82cd1413d462, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article should be rewritten to remove the puffery but I do think the subject is notable and meets WP:GNG. The references given include to articles in The Telegraph, Harpers Bazaar, Daily Mail and El Pais. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I'm all for keeping and rewriting but IMHO this should be Deleted and rewritten (Well over 95% of the article is PR and if we remove this we're only left with a small sentence if that - If someone believes they're notable then it can be rewritten by a neutral editor), Also just to note that the Daily Mail is no longer a reliable source, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Refs are sufficient for notability. Should have been tagged with its issues rather than sent here. Szzuk (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging achieves nothing, As I said above this entire article is better off deleted and rewritten by a neutral editor - Other than the lede there is literally nothing in this article that can be kept due to it all being promotional. –Davey2010^Talk 21:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC){Updated 02:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete as per WP:TNT. While the company may be notable, this article is so blatantly promotional, that the best thing is to delete it and start over. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only is the article completely promotional, *none* of the references are intellectually independent and they fail WP:NCORP. Both Cwmhiraeth and Szzuk state that the references are sufficient for notability. This is not true - at least for the ones included in the article and mentioned here. Perhaps could either of them please post which references meet the criteria for establishing notability here? While the references are published by third party reliable sources, the references/article themselves are not intellectually independent or contain no in-depth information - qualities which are required in order for references to meet the criteria for establishing notability. Cwmhiraeth mentions references from The Telegraph, Harpers Bazaar, Daily Mail and El Pais. But The Telegraph article relies on quotations and interview with the founder with no independent analysis or opinon and no independent in-depth reporting on the company, therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The Harpers Bazaar reference is a listing of "The Best Designer Resale Sites" with a small description of each site - specifically fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it fails "inclusion in lists of similar organizations". There's two Daily Mail references. The first is "My lightbulb moment" from the founder -> fails for the same reasons as the Telegraph article. The second reference is not intellectually independent as the author relies on information provided by the company as demonstrated with comments such as (and its a bit of a giveaway) "and Gucci, whose owner is super famous, but sadly I’m not allowed to reveal her identity." Both Daily Mail references fail WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ,,,, One thin crop of an article and there's no good stuff on it, delete as spam. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are insufficient sources to pass WP:CORP both in the article and from search. Tagging usually doesn't sole these kind of problem because of WP:AMOUNT. Better leave it in near future when they get more coverage, someone who have access to more sources to write it in better shape –Ammarpad (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:CORPDEPTH & WP:NCORP; an advertorial piece on an unremarkable company. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Estadio Nuevo León Unido[edit]

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

Recreation of a page which had been deleted through prod back in January 2017. No indication of significance, fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Oops - seems this was a dupe of the article which was deleted in January, and has just now been renamed to that page's old name. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious failing of WP:GNG. No reliable sources, no independent coverage, no any (sourced!) significant claim of importance that makes it different from similar stadia around the world. Search return barely same with this stub and Wikipedia mirrors. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with argument regarding WP:GNG. Ventric (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to M1 motorway#Incidents and accidents. As a compromise between keep and delete. Content can be merged from history subject to editorial consensus. Sandstein 06:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 M1 motorway crash[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Multiple-vehicle pile-ups on motorways are not uncommon, and I don't see how this article is encyclopedic. Coverage of the crash had dried up entirely by the week after. Buttons0603 (talk) 19:08, 30 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 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this was the deadliest bus accident ever it would have a claim to notability, but just as the deadliest 21st century crash so far I'm not sure it makes the cut. Other than that it's a clear failure of notability - no wikinotable people killed/involved, tragic but WP:RUNOFTHEMILL road accident. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As notable as this incident -- and we know where that article is heading. The comparisons are strikingly identical: receives a routine news cycle, little to no follow-up, and no societal impact. It is tragic but that alone has never been, nor should it ever be, a reason for inclusion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: TheGracefulSlick has said exactly what I was going to say. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to M1 motorway#Incidents and accidents which mentions it already. Not notable enough event. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As User:Joseph2302 says, it is mentioned at the M1 motorway article. Not notable enough to warrant its own article. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems like a reasonable compromise: I'm happy to change my vote. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect as a non-notable traffic collision. I note that 2011 M5 motorway crash was notable due to controversy over the cause (a nearby fireworks event being implicated), and 1991 M4 motorway crash due to the number of victims and consequent changes to legislation. However this, along with 1997 M42 motorway crash appears not to have any coverage distinguishing it from a straightforward traffic incident at this stage.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS where I live almost every day it is very likely to find road accident news in print dailies and broadcast media, but I never thought such are encyclopedic material, even ghastly ones which claim like 10 and above lives. This is plain News and hysteria with it will soon fade out, no societal impact. Our moribund sister project WikiNews is in dire need of articles and that is the appropriate place for this article.Ammarpad (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep News coverage hasn't dried up at all, One suspect is on bail pending a court hearing, early next year, one was reprimanded. I suggest waiting until then instead of jumping the gun with theories like "news has dried up". For example M40 minibus crash, which happened in 1993 could be tagged as non-notable, as again no-one important for a Wiki article was killed. The last source relating to the accident was published in 2013, 20 years after the accident happened. Nightfury 08:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The M40 minibus crash which I had meant to mention in my comment above is notable due to the consequent law changes, formation of charities etc.. The notability or otherwise of the victims does not appear to be relevant in any of these crashes. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And, as mentioned, regulartory changes and other signs of WP:PERSISTENCE are relevant there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable accident with huge coverage in the media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ITSINTHENEWS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - extensive coverage in major publications in the UK and India due to the victims being Indian nationals - passes WP:GNG. Highest number of fatalities on a UK motorway in 24 years distinguishes this from every other incident for the past 24 years. I added the death toll to the lede. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to M1 motorway#Incidents and accidents per Joseph - Significant event, but WP:NOTNEWS. Best place for this information would be a subsection on the article about the roadway itself. Redirecting without moving the information would not serve the community. Operator873^CONNECT 02:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarafina Belafonte[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Notability appears to be based on relationships. reddogsix (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Minor fails GNG. TOOSOON. Redirect to her father. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not independently notable. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HindWiki^Connect 02:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SCOP formalism[edit]

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

Not a notable concept. Barely intelligible in parts. Clearly a WP:FRINGE topic ("belongs to the emergent field of quantum cognition"). Likely promotional for Diederik Aerts. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs to be rewritten (or cut down and merged), but the article does not satisfy your stated rationale for deletion: SCOP formalism does not "[depart] significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views", as required by WP:FRINGE. cnzx (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article carries significance. Like what @Cnzx: said, the article just needs to be reconstructed and further polished to be suitable for the en.wiki. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Quantum cognition" does sound like crackpot nonsense, but if you read and follow what these pages are actually talking about, it is more legitimate than it may seem on a quick skim. The claim is not that brains are literally functioning quantum mechanically, but that a similar mathematical formalism (states, eigenvalues, analogues of measurements, interference effects...) may be useful for describing some features of cognition. Clearly this is not the mainstream approach to cognition or behavioral economics, but nor is it Deepak Chopra.
After writing this, I've discovered I've esentially reproduced the description on the Rational Wiki (scroll down to about paragraph 5): This [pseudoscientific "quantum consciousness"] should be distinguished from research into "cognition," which applies quantum-mechanical mathematical models to human behavior in areas where classical probability theory fails to match observed human behavior. "Quantum cognition" does not assume that the underlying human consciousness is quantum-mechanical; it's simply that a few psychologists noted that the same concepts and equations used in quantum mechanics are for reasons unknown good analogies for actual human behavior where traditional probability theory suggests that actual behavior is irrational.

-- Gpc62 (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gpc62 - sounds very much like a KEEP, then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is coherent, on a notable topic, and fully cited to reliable sources. It has structural defects like lacking a lead and needing copy-editing, but those aren't AfD matters. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've had fun making a diagram of the article's (very good) explanation of concept combination and emergence. I've also copy-edited and wikilinked a little. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (as nom) I still feel there's too much un-referenced mumbo-jumbo in the article to understand what the topic of the article is supposed to be; the page is also an orphan so I can't tell from its use in context on any other page. I consider all of quantum cognition to be WP:FRINGE. I would appreciate if one of the people who feels the article is coherent could add a one-sentence summary of what "SCOP formalism" is to the article or to this AfD. I'd also like better referencing, especially to any papers not by Diederik Aerts that actually uses the term; I have found some for "spherical complex optical potential" formalism which is obviously different, and [1] appears to be unrelated to cognition. [2] is better, but still suggests that the term is so vague as to be vacuous in meaning. And I don't know there are any references that aren't obscure research papers. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I've added a lead. Your first reference[3] is absolutely about this formalism. The formalism started out as a formalism for describing quantum and classical physical systems. So far as I'm aware, it is very rarely used in physics, but has found more use as a scheme for describing concepts more generally. One of those uses is quantum cognition. SCOP is not a subfield of quantum cognition. Are you following this so far? I just focused on quantum cognition in my first comment to point out that quantum cognition is not the crackpot nonsense that it sounds like from the name. You are very mistaken if you think the SCOP formalism is so vague as to be vacuous. Have you actually looked at any of the papers, such as Aerts's 1983 J.Math.Phys.? — Gpc62 (talk) 07:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that SCOP is a blanket term for any descriptions of "entities" in mathematical terminology. Having read the 1983 paper, I see no way this article is about any single coherent concept. That paper is entirely unrelated to "quantum cognition". Simply having the same person publish papers about multiple topics involving the word "quantum" and calling them the same is WP:SYNTH. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Chiswick Chap (sounds very much like a KEEP, then): I'm actually still on the fence, based on my own assessment of the topic. I just find myself arguing in the direction of "keep" because it looks like there's a lot of misunderstanding on the "delete" side of the debate. — Gpc62 (talk) 08:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a nonsense to me. This is hardly of any value for general public. My very best wishes (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward McNally (NFL)[edit]

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

Fails notability. "Known" for crashing Super Bowls. No reliable sources found. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 17:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG as a person. Only wiki mirrors. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @L3X1: Did you search for "Skipper McNally"? - [4] - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did just now, and while the NYT article was interesting, I don't think enough people wrote of him to make him notable. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if everything in the article would be confirmed, the subject still does not pass notability. Fails WP:GNG and any other notability standard I can find.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not sure if it's the same guy, but here's a 2-part feature story: Poughkeepsie, pt. 1, Poughkeepsie, part 2. Cbl62 (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, no its not the same guy. He's only been to two Super Bowls. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when you have to dredge up bit part acting mentions, the person is almost certainly not notable. His football crashing activities just do not rise to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As unverifiable. Sandstein 06:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global Garrison High School[edit]

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

It is for-profit private school so it has to pass WP:GNG which it fails. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing the basic test of WP:VERIFY, let alone WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the basic tests of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Being private is utterly irrelevant. Not sure why the nominator thinks it makes a difference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Failing our core policy WP:V. Störm (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - unclear that this school exists, yet to find anything reliable showing that it does. JMWt (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - infobox URL link is dead, no Google results, did find a Garrison Global in Cincinnati.[[5]] Not the same. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:VERIFY... Secondary schools have precedent to be included so long as their existence can be verified... which can't be accomplished with this one. Operator873^CONNECT 02:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 07:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Shaheen School System[edit]

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

There is no coverage in WP:RS and because it is for-profit private school so it has to pass WP:GNG which it fails. Störm (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lack of secondary coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Being private is utterly irrelevant. Not sure why the nominator thinks it makes a difference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Failing our core policy WP:V. Störm (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:VERIFY. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Storm. HindWiki^Connect 02:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources; no online presence; fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Kamal Boys High School[edit]

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

Because it is private, so it has to pass WP:GNG. No significant coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We don't disqualify articles just because a school has a for-profit model. You've previously nominated this article and it was closed with a procedural keep; no improvement in this nomination. Nate • (chatter) 18:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with previous one. We need at least one independent source before making any assumption. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete actually the "general" notability guidelines are the key to verifiability. If something cannot pass the GNG, it is unclear that it is verifiable, and so no reason to to keep it. I would hold the same views on the article on this school if it was a public institution. It is an article with no sources, it is high time we make it so articles cannot be created without sources and we delete all the articles lacking sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Appears to be the same school as this one. If so, redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we had reliable sources, then we could work out what the article should be called, too! Cordless Larry (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - yet to find anything reliable showing that this school exists. JMWt (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG HindWiki^Connect 02:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't redirect per Al-Kamal_Higher_Secondary_College#History. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 03:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear; with respect to the proposed redirect, most of the brands listed were not actually named after Trump. bd2412 T 04:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump fragrances[edit]

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

Non-notable, discontinued fragrances. Most sources are repeats of the March 2012 launch of Success by Trump (the initial name of the article) and the June 2014 protests against Macy's; the rest are ephemeral reminders that briefly came to attention during the 2016 presidential campaign. Those fragrances have no inherent notability aside from Donald Trump, so per WP:INHERIT the article should be removed. A brief mention in the List of things named after Donald Trump is enough. — JFG ^talk 16:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable indepdent of the originator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable product WP:PRODUCT. Unreasonably namechecking and inheriting of notability against WP:NOTINHERITED. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of things named after Donald Trump. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ammarpad. HindWiki^Connect 02:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTINHERITED the product itself has not created a market changing impact, therefore fails WP:PRODUCT. If the content of this article is to be kept, suggest Redirect to List of things named after Donald Trump. Operator873^CONNECT 02:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States. There is a consensus that there are not enough sources to support an article at this time. – Joe (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Morrow Hawley[edit]

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

Combination of WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTINHERITED: who she is married to does not confer notability, and in itself clerking for a SCOTUS justice does not make them notable either (although people who do very often go on to do notable things). In this case, however they do not seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC: a few publications with low citations, no major awards or offices, and she lacks significant coverage in 3rd party RS. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTINHERITED. No pass of WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I wrote out the article, it is now sufficiently notable.Bjhillis (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable how? Sorry but article length/detail is not what makes someone notable, and your additions don't change my !vote, or (imo) demonstrate notability. Editing the Yale law school journal is the only thing that gave me pause for thought, but if you click the link the masthead makes it clear that she was one of about 48 "senior editors," working under almost as many "managing editors" and an editor-in-chief. So, not really an "editor" at all in the sense that would make her notable - looks like half or more of Yale's law students are "editors" for the journal at any given time. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for Megalibrarygirl to have a look at it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see something in there about being counsel to a U.S. Attorney General??? Looking at the article history I am amazed to see this knee-jerk AfD was made just half an hour after the first edit to create the article stub. I see more than two independent sources about the subject and it certainly seems interesting enough to let the editors continue to work on it. Wnt (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wnt: Being counsel to the attorney general just means that you work as a lawyer in the AG's office - they have junior lawyers and interns working there just like every other gov't office, it's not an inherently notable position. More generally: if you're going to vote "keep," maybe you should explain which notability criteria you think she meets, and how? Fyddlestix (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. I just don't see any claim to notability. Certainly not that she was a Future Farmers of America member, high school valedictorian(?), editor on the Yale Law Review might be notable *if* anybody ever choose to write an article on it, but our reference is just to the masthead (not in-depth coverage). The closest achievement she has that might be considered notable is as a clerk to Chief Justice Roberts (our reference for this is a blog of one of her friends). But our List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States gives 55 other people who have served in the same position with Roberts and only one, her husband, has an article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hawley's notability is: (1) counsel to the U.S. Attorney General and private practice at elite Bancroft and Kirkland & Ellis; (2) law professor at UM; (3) scholar of U.S. Supreme Court jurisdiction who has published three law review articles on the topic; (4) participant in public discussion on SCOTUS blog, C-SPAN, and television news.Bjhillis (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep a quick google news search turns up several items by or about her, or using her as a source. i'd say that qualifies under WP:GNG -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 07:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Thanks for pinging me in, Ritchie333, but my searches are turning up only mentions of her being quoted, or of her writing. I hit several databases I have access to that usually reliably turn up good info and came up empty. The sources in the article don't quite meet the threshold for GNG notability. There is an interview, several university sources and sources that are primarily about her husband. I think she's TOOSOON, but given that she's being quoted often and is writing about law, it would probably be more useful to move the article to user space, since she may likely be notable in the near future, IMO. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If industrious Megalibrarygirl can't find enough sources we can be sure that they aren't there. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a reasonable nomination and there isn't a huge amount of substantial coverage readily available online, but I think common sense applies that this is a notable subject as a professor at a major uni who worked for a supreme court justice and the attorney general, who's married to Missouri's Attorney General, who has a presence as a public figure and speaker, who's husband is a major candidate for Senate in Missouri, and who's writing on the law and topical political issues provide useful discourse. Could we take a strict interpretation of policy and delete her bio as too soon? Sure. We could stash it in user space or undelete it down the road, but it's obvious that this in fact a signifance and influential individual in the educational, political, and legal realms. We would be doing our readers a disservice by hiding it from view as we all expect her to continue to be a subject of interest and influence going forward even more so than she already has been. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being the wife of a state attorney general in no way confirs notability, so that is a fail. While many clerks to Supreme Court justices rise to the level of notability, it is not a case of default notability, just a case of putting you on the right track. Thus, for example Hannah Clayson Smith is notable as a lead attorney in cases like the Hosana-Tabor Case, not because she was law clerk to two supreme court justices. Morrow's role under Mukasey is even less clearly grounds for notability. It almost seems to me that the postion has been spun as more important than it is. On the issue of being a law professor, this can be grounds for notability, but I do not see indications that her scholarship has yet risen to a level to make her notable. We need a good citation record or a named chair, which are both lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After a read of this discussion and doing the classic tri-search I have to conclude that this is just too soon. A wide variety of sources can be found, including a reference from The New York Times, but significant coverage is the major failure. Technically I can find multiple paragraphs in reliable sources about her, but no more than one a independent source. In this !vote I am more considering the message of general notability than the specific wording of the general notability guideline. Now, here are sources I have found: [6], [7] (section 3, paragraph 2), [8], [9] (section 1, paragraph 4), [10] (row 7, column 2), and [11] (paragraph 7). Despite the whole article being about Hawley, source 1 has only one non-interview paragraph and combined with my questioning of reliability for this niche website (Missouri Lawyers Media) I don't think it has enough to count in anyway towards the general presumption of notability. Source 2 is merely a sentence about her. Source 3—despite being easy SIGCOV—is also quite easily a primary source. Source 4 is only 1–3 sentences. Source 5 is one sentence in a gallery. Source 6 is a paragraph, but does not quite qualify. All in all, the sources I've found are mainly about her opinions and analysis. Megalibrarygirl sums up the situation well and as she's a expert in women-related topics I feel inclined to agree with her. Thus, weak userfy/draftify. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 04:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Law clerks.... Meets neither WP:PROF or GNG. Had she been editor in chief if Yale Law Journal, I would have considered her notable, but she was one one the 138 editors in her year. The number of publications so far is insufficient.Whether being a clerk to a Justice of the Supreme Court ius notable is worth considering, but the best way to establish would be to go 30 or 40 years back, and see how many have careers that would make them otherwise notable. Only then could we assume that all present ones would be also. Otherwise, it's basically the same as a postdoctoral position to a very famous scientist, not yet notable . DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting discussion. I fear most women law professors would not meet the notability standards suggested above (Hawley's five law review articles not enough? Yale Law Journal too obscure?). For example, a majority of the 50 or so female law clerks to Sandra Day O'Connor, both law partners and professors, would not meet these standards of notability (how many female law professors in the U.S. hold endowed chairs? 5? 6?) I added to Hawley's article the cite mentioned above where she is quoted in the NY Times, and another to the WaPo, and details on her working with Paul Clement on a U.S. Supreme Court brief. In all seriousness, I had the misimpression that the Delete tag was applied due to Hawley's extreme right wing politics, which is offensive to many and perhaps unfortunate given her shining intellect, but am heartened that none of the comments above mention her ideology. Whether Hawley is deleted matters little. What remains is the wider effect on including women lawyers on Wiki.Bjhillis (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea that she had any politics. I voted delete on sources. Women lawyers (or anything else) are welcome on Wikipedia if notability is adequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Redirect per User:DGG above, as others have called it WP:TOOSOON, but the possibility of more coverage happening that could make this article later, a redirect will preserve the history so it can be expanded back out when more substantiate coverage has occurred (and not need to go through a deletion review to find it!). Wow that was alot of comma. Gatemansgc (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per DGG. It's clear that she doesn't so far have enough publications or cites in them for showing influence. Whether most law clerks for the supreme court eventually become notable is not important as she's not notable right now - perhaps an article can be created later but not now. Most women law professors would not meet WP:NPROF because most professors don't - it's based on the average professor test: someone has to be more influential than the average professor. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC) She's not even a full professor yet. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Students Organisation Pakistan[edit]

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

There is nothing in WP:RS at least for this Pakistani organization. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most certainly fails WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for multiple violations. Religious advocacy against WP:NOTADVOCACY, promotion of association against WP:PROMO and lack of independent reliables sources per WP:GNG. No indepth coverage for WP:ORG and totally non notable. Students organizations require extraordinary achievement to become notable encyclopedic material.–Ammarpad (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Cloutier[edit]

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

Non notable model. Some covers, some works, just that. damiens.rf 16:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I stated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Cloutier (2nd nomination), I support the arguments presented there that she has achieved a significant level of notability. I.E., The Master noted that she has established international notability in her profession based on a diverse set of print media works from around the globe.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the exact same reasons as on the previous AfD. Additionally, this repeated AfD of this article with copy/pasted rationale by Damiens.rf is becoming disruptive and needs to stop. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was and is notable per WP:SIGCOV. gidonb (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for models.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Nothing has changed since the last AfD which has established notability. f e minist 10:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per the recent WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES RfC, I have discounted arguments that the article should be kept solely because it is about a school. – Joe (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ace School System[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

For-profit, private schools has to WP:GNG which this school system fails. Störm (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We don't disqualify articles just because a school has a for-profit model. You've previously nominated this article and it was closed with a procedural keep; no improvement in this nomination. Nate • (chatter) 18:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with previous one. We need at least one independent source before making any assumption. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of any sources other than the organizations own website. Beyond this, the procedural keep was a horrible way to close. Wikipedia has lots and lots of unneeded junk articles that are not up to our standards, and these should be removed, not left because of archane rules that do not even exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. At first, I thought there was some good coverage, but this turned out to be about Accelerated Christian Education schools. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as secondary schools per longstanding precedent and consensus. Being private is utterly irrelevant. Not sure why the nominator thinks it makes a difference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghafer Shahzad[edit]

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

There is a COI because the subject and the contributor are from same place, Jehlum. Getting PhD is never enough to get a profile on WP. No significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is architect and architecture but no notable career thus fails WP:CREATIVE. getting PhD's doesn't makes one notable. the article claims subject has authored fifteen books, I believe they are non-notable. being chief architecture in a government department is not a major post until he has done something of significance. the article claims (OR) He has designed historical monuments including mosques and shrines but this doesn't states which. this and this both mention the subject but they are considered namechecking and doesn't satisfy even minimum WP:GNG IMO. --Saqib (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as an architect or as an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Govt Elementary School Kantrila[edit]

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

Elementary schools has to pass WP:GNG as they aren't covered by WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. No significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to justify an article on an elementary school we need significant, substantial coverage. That is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is high schools that are presumed notable if they have some sources not primary or middle and whatnot. Utterly non notable. No independent sources. It only exists and existence is not notability–Ammarpad (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to List of computing schools in Pakistan#Rawalpindi. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Computer Institutes in Rawalpindi[edit]

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

We are not WP:DIRECTORY. Maybe redirect to List of computing schools in Pakistan. Störm (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to List of computing schools in Pakistan#Rawalpindi Then what's stopping you? Nothing stopped me from doing it. These 'throw up a vague reason' Pakistani nominations from you are getting tiring, and we have more than one process than AfD. This can be closed. Nate • (chatter) 18:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Annika Hinze[edit]

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

I believe it is WP:TOOSOON for this particular scholar to be notable - associate professor, low citations in scholar, no major awards or positions that would meet WP:NACADEMIC, I looked but did not find substantial coverage of her in independent RS. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand -related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet any of the many notabiluity criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per the recent WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES RfC, I have discounted arguments that the article should be kept solely because it is about a school. – Joe (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Quaid School[edit]

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

Because it is private, for-profit high school so it has to pass WP:GNG. At least, in my searches there is no independent coverage so fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We don't disqualify articles just because a school has a for-profit model. You've previously nominated this article and it was closed with a procedural keep; no improvement in this nomination. Nate • (chatter) 18:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with previous one. We need at least one independent source before making any assumption. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep going to echo what Nate has said here. The idea that for profit/independent schools are any less notable that government ones reflects a systemic bias. In the context I am in, independent schools are sometimes more notable in their communities than government ones and by no means are simply rent seeking institutions. Furthermore, if what Nate says is correct and you are re-nominating an article with zero changes, then this can be seen as an abuse of the AFD system and I would reccomend that sanctions are placed against this nominator to prevent this happening again. At the very least, an administrative warning.Egaoblai (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, provide a single source independent of the subject before repeating your comment. They are business ventures and therefore need to pass WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at the talk page and the edit history and there is no previous AfD. I also looked at the one external link in the article, and it seems to be a form with no entries. Unscintillating (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking reliable sources that verify any of the article's content. A quick search for possible sources has not revealed anything reliable. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Verifiability is a core content policy and as per the administrator's guide to deletion, verifiability is not negotiable or subject to a local consensus to disregard. In terms of WP:DEL-REASONs, this is WP:DEL7 with an IAR for the source search, where the reasons for the IAR are both the statement in the administrator's guide, and the fact that sourcing an unsourced article is as much work as writing the article from scratch, so nothing is lost by deleting the article. Note that this article also fails WP:V#Notability. I also performed a minimal source search using "The Quaid School", "The Quaid Foundation School" and "The Quaid Foundation High School". Unscintillating (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a lack of adequate sources to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Being private is utterly irrelevant. Not sure why the nominator thinks it makes a difference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - yet to find anything reliable which indicates that this school exists. Prove it exists and I'll happily !vote keep as per consensus. JMWt (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DPS JC Z Block Lhr[edit]

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

This is a primary school which I found on their website. So, it has to pass WP:NORG or something like that which it fails. Störm (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If consensus is to keep schools like Aldersley High School simply because they exist, then we ought also to keep this school which at least has some claim to notability, being one of the largest schools in Lahore (according to [12]). Given that this school is in a developing nation (rather than Britain, one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world), it seems more plausible that off-line-only sources might exist to demonstrate its notability. Pburka (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a private 'primary school'. Störm (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it can properly be called a private school; it's run by the military as far as I can tell. Can you explain why primary schools are less notable than secondary schools? Pburka (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the consensus is that junior schools are not notable. No reason to think that this school has any special claim to notability. JMWt (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salt will be added. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Malhotra[edit]

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

The article was two times deleted in past. For now there' s no reliable sources with this WP:BLP HINDWIKI • CHAT 12:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per WP:NOTLINKEDIN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, I think it's even a G11 candidate, but I won't pull the trigger. It seems this article was meant to go through the afc process, but they bypassed it. Normally I'd recommend moving back to the afc process, but considering the history and delete and salt seems best. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I believe it's a G11 or a A7 candidate, without doubt. Anyways, this BLP has zero notability Ajf773 (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heypenny[edit]

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

Not a notable band. The is a small selection of local news sources from years ago, and not a lot else aside from self-published works. A search for sources returns the same. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find more content from other sources beyond what is in the aricle already –Ammarpad (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mollie King. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hair Down (Mollie King Song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. HINDWIKI • CHAT 12:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mollie King. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The song fails NSONG but I put down redirect as an ATD. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSONG. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mollie King for now, although in the longer term a redirect to her forthcoming album may be better. There's a couple of promotional interviews with the OCC [13] and The Line of Best Fit [14] about the track, but they end up being more about the Xenomania production team than anything substantial about the song itself. I'm amazed that despite the huge publicity gained by being on Strictly Come Dancing she couldn't get this song into the charts, but as it stands it fails WP:NSONG. Richard3120 (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moved to User:Takalisa/sandbox. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Takalisa/sandbox[edit]

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

A lot of issues including layout notability and need for more references Luna935 (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentUser:Luna935 and Takalisa I have moved the sandbox into the userspace, User:Takalisa/sandbox, as it was not properly an article. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free Congress Foundation[edit]

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

This entity no longer exists(nosuchbucket). In the last comment section on the talk page, (updates), written in Jan 2011 by someone claiming to be the son of its then President and CEO, (Jim Gilmour?), we are provided with three new links, (this, this and this), all of which also return 404 (no such bucket) responses. The editor signed as Freecongress.

The website in the infobox of this article reads “freecongress.org” but the site redirects to “American Opportunity”, which is a 501(c)(3) outreach of The American Opportunity Foundation, a for profit company, (which provides a url that leads here). Despite a ref tag dated June 2015, not much editing has happened until March 2017, when an unregistered editor notified the reader of a "rebranding", (and redirected the listed website), and most recently, (October 2017), another unregistered editor tacked on It is a 501(c)(3) research and education organization. I don't think so.

It seems to me that the article was initially created to promote a political platform, went through a particularly contentious period in 2009, (when Jim Gilmore took over / beginning of the Obama Presidency), and now those who most vehemently sought to nurture the article are content to simply "rebrand" (new administration?), by redirecting to the new site, leaving Wikipedia with a "nosuchbucket" vestige of their previous exhortations. While my research suggests there was such an entity worth recording for posterity, what exists is no more than a P.O. box for a political platform that has since moved on. This article should be deleted to allow those with an historical bent to make more encyclopedic use of the title, without the political baggage. Mark^Dask 01:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Organizations must be recognized by independent sources through detailed report to become notable. This defunct organization didn't have that, therefore fails basic WP:GNG and no any (sourced!) claim of significance that can meet any points of org notability as outlined at WP:ORG. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies if you are able to supply better sources. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Devamrita Swami[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

With a lack of an SNG specifically about monks, this seems to fail our fallback of GNG. I see one significant source, but it's more an announcement / interview, not constituting in-depth coverage of the subject. A WP:BEFORE indicated much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some mentions, but fails NMonk.L3X1 (distænt write) 19:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G. A. Rama Raju[edit]

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

I don't think this physician passes WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Some of his work has been cited, but no "significant impact in their scholarly discipline". Mentions in other secondary sources are in passing. No other evidence of notability is presented. Muhandes (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa vs Purdue[edit]

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

The lack of significant coverage is a good indicator that this "rivalry" fails WP:GNG, and liberally uses the term rivalry for a Wikipedia entry. Per WP:NRIVALRY not every matchup is inherently notable and I am not fully convinced there is an actual rivalry between these two teams. Regardless, Wikipedia is not a database for game outcomes and, once we remove scheduled game announcements, there is little actual encyclopedic substance to this article. TheGuracefulSlick (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources used are biased and some are quite insulting in tone. Nothing found on Google News to indicate significant and notable rivalry (Oxford vs Cambridge) for example beyond local media. That rivalry exists between two teams is not questioned. Does it meet WP:NRIVALRY? I think not. The assumption that we will understand from the page title that this rivalry relates to football, is itself ridiculous. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, seriously? This should be speedied. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 13:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: not notable ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ This entire article is WP:POINTY from the creator; a redirect to the article (formerly an article) is called 1000 miles of corn and there's a picture of corn in the article. We get it, the rivalry is between two teams who live in corn-growing states. But this isn't a rivalry, nor is the article creation funny. Nate • (chatter) 21:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and transfer per WO9's findings. Nate • (chatter) 20:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an article on Iowa–Purdue football rivalry, which was created before Iowa vs Purdue. The Iowa vs Purdue article should be redirected and this AfD should be transferred to the other page. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and transfer AfD per WikiOriginal–9. Lepricavark (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators, "If the major stakeholders have not been notified of the proposed deletion or given time to respond, reliable consensus determinations will rarely be possible." Unscintillating (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, Unscintillating the article creator was notified and have had a few days to respond. What are you talking about?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I !voted redirect without naming a redirect target, which target can be derived from the flow of the discussion. The flow of the discussion, as well as the logic that comes out from comparing the two articles, led to the possibility of a double AfD. The rest of the !vote explains why a redirect is the fair process here versus a double AfD. Since the double AfD is not on the table, I didn't mention my personal research that leads me to conclude that people at Purdue are not aware of the Iowa rivalry. I politely ignored the issue that the nominator could have made the redirect without involving the AfD volunteers; and the truth is it was my privilege to learn the three Purdue rivalries: Indiana, Illinois, and Notre Dame. Unscintillating (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This is a classic case for a redirect. I guess whether the other page is kept is a separate issue. -- Dolotta (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if Iowa and Purdue don't consider it a notable rivalry, why should we?--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's another way to do this - bundle the nomination. It'll require another week, but so would redirecting and reopening.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 08:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As my relisting comment says: now including Iowa–Purdue football rivalry in the nomination. And also delete; there is really no evidence for a rivalry, and the "1,000 miles of corn" crap (and apparently the whole thing) is a dumb Twitter joke. ansh 666 08:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borderline hoax article. Lizard (talk) 08:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe that calling it a "hoax" is too severe. The games are played, they are real and sources support it. It's just not notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah I know. I only say that because it was likely created as a result of a joke. Lizard (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regarding Iowa vs Purdue; no position at this time regarding the recent expansion of the AfD to include Iowa–Purdue football rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They're almost exactly the same article... ansh 666 18:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Copyvio of https://sites.google.com/site/nayakprasadsinghji/ NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nayak Prasad Singh[edit]

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

no reliable sources found. HINDWIKI • CHAT 06:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An unreliably-sourced article which makes no claim of the subject's notability. The article text is one of the poorest that I have seen, full of repetitions of blocks of sentences and within sentences, with an excess of exclamation marks, and appearing to be a machine translation: even if notability could be established, WP:TNT would be appropriate as there is nothing here which serves the encyclopaedia. Nor am I seeing a claim to encyclopaedic notability in the article's stream of family history or finding better in searches. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the article demonstrates that translation programs still have a long way to go, and I'm still not sure why the creator considers the subject to be notable (since we don't have a category WP:NFARMER) - but it definitely fails WP:NOTOBITUARY. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A complete fail of WP:GNG. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nom withdraw, no outstanding deletes. (non-admin closure) L3X1 (distænt write) 19:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vinx De'Jon Parrette[edit]

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

No sources, didn't speedy as there is an external link, but a little research shows little sign this person meets WP:GNG. JamesG5 (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did a quick search and found some references on this, which I added to the article. Subject also seems to be a member of Jungle Funk. I'll leave it to others to decide if this meets basic notability requirements.RelaxedTim (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I missed the Jungle Funk involvement, first few Google pages didn't show it here. With that, I'd be OK withdrawing this. Apologies. JamesG5 (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Titanium Wolf (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baa Atoll Education Centre[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:SCH - no significant coverage. Titanium Wolf (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to US-Bangla Airlines. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

US-Bangla Group[edit]

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

Barely any notability, most article links are non existing also the intro text looks promotional. Bingobro (Chat) 05:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noted as above, but disagree with AfD for now. I started the article, based on reading the start of US-Bangla Airlines and wondering who the owners were, seeing that they are referenced in others articles. I thought it was best to start the article seeing that they seem to own an airline, as well as other companies. The article itself is referenced, which is more than other articles are; I even put a citation-needed tag from a sentence taken from the US-Bangla Airlines page! I do not live in Bangladesh, not from Bangladesh, and have no links to Bangladesh or the company/airline. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with US-Bangla Airlines. RelaxedTim (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to US-Bangla Airlines. In theory the airline is the tail, and the group is the dog, but in practice the group (and its other companies) receives no significant, independent coverage in reliable sources, only passing mentions in articles about the airline. The group does not satisfy WP:CORP. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Corvidae[edit]

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

No indication of notability. I tried to find information to fill out this article but found basically nothing beyond blogs and sales sites like Amazon. Leschnei (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any significant coverage either, which is strange considering the number of books she's published (and some have been translated to German according to one site). She seems to be good at it. I'm willing to retract my vote if someone finds any evidence of meeting WP:AUTHOR. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ran a news archive search, and all I could find was 3 pr 4 listings of local bookstore book signing. Not a single usable source found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is enough doubt as to notability here that I am happy to apply WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE here. Mz7 (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Thompson[edit]

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

This WP:BLP fails Wikipedia:Notability (people), lacks WP:RS and deletion is requested by the subject of the article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 01:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did find several (mainly British) press publishing about her - have added some sources to the article. Subject may meet WP:GNG, but if there has been a request to delete the article by the subject then that's a different story. RelaxedTim (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Policy is here - Wikipedia:BLPREQUESTDELETE - I have no objection to deletion (although I've not seen the request from the individual herself). Szzuk (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing about this individual is so much propelling them to the level of notability that we should have an article on them against their wishes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-followed Twitter accounts[edit]

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

This page is far from a properly sourced encyclopedia article about the topic, which seems to have no actual significant coverage. This is a WP:ELNO-violating index of primary-source offlinks to numerous Twitter accounts, violating WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia isn't a platform for hosting links to other websites' content. Links in a list article should be internal links to other Wikipedia articles, not offsite refspam links to other websites. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: none of the external links even appear inline. They are used as bona fide primary sources that appear in their designated place in the footnotes. As far as actual deletion issues are concerned (WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP), the topic corresponds to what WP:LISTN has to say: "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". I don't think it's a WP:NOT item. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the links appear inline or as refspam is irrelevant. Either way they add no value, and simply serve as a directory of external links to content hosted offsite. The issue is whether the subject "most followed Twitter accounts" meets WP:GNG. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable sources are there which compare the relative popularity of Twitter accounts? Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For starters, the number of people who follow any given Twitter account changes daily for any number of reasons: new followers adding it, old followers removing it or getting deleted from the platform as Russian bots, and on and so forth — so it's a characteristic that's in a state of constant flux and renders a list dynamically unmaintanable. Secondly, with just one exception here the references aren't reliable sources, but merely the primary source Twitter feeds themselves — and the one reliable source exception just discusses Katy Perry's number of followers without being about the concept of comparing different people's Twitter followings. Which means that ranking people by the size of their twitbase isn't a thing that reliable sources do — it amounts to original research that we're doing ourselves. And at any rate, does it really matter how many Twitter followers a person has? Is Alicia Keys a better singer than Adele just because she has more Twitter followers? No, it just means that Alicia Keys' audience skews a bit younger and Adele's skews a bit older, so Alicia Keys' audience is somewhat more likely to be on Twitter in the first place. Does having more Twitter followers make Demi Lovato more important than Narendra Modi? Hardly; there just aren't as many people in India using the platform. And furthermore, the number of followers the person has doesn't necessarily correspond to the person's influence on the platform — as witness the fact that the one person on the list whose tweets get talked about in the news more than anybody else's doesn't even actually rank in the Top 20 by number of people and/or bots who follow him directly. Who over the age of 12 really gives two hoots about such twaddle as who has more or less Twitter followers than who else? Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Many sites compile similar lists of the most popular Twitter personalities; surely we could use them as sources. Contrary to some Delete arguments, the list does not assert relative importance, talent or fame of people mentioned, it's just a Twitter ranking, no more no less. The argument about frequent updates makes little sense, when precision of the follower count is by the million: the list has seen barely 500 edits in a year. By the same token, we maintain List of most-viewed YouTube videos, which is informative or trivial depending on your POV. — JFG ^talk 01:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And why is Twitter ranking a thing that an encyclopedia needs to give a flying fig about? Who in their right mind thinks that tells anybody anything important? Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinion of what may or may not be of interest to our vast diversity of readers is not a reason to delete. Such lists are evidently notable, and their thousands of daily page views demonstrate their popularity towards the WP audience. — JFG ^talk 21:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page views isn't a valid reason to keep. So far, nobody has offered a policy-grounded rationale why the topic of "most followed twitter accounts" is notable and should be kept. Nobody has offered any sources that discuss the topic in depth. That's really all that matters here. This isn't a matter of WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between "popular" and "relevant to an encyclopedia". Articles about every currently viral meme-gif would be popular if we had them, but we keep or delete them based on whether reliable sources independent of the topic can be shown to discuss their notability, not just whether KnowYourMeme verifies that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Ditto to what JFG said. — Gang14 (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Twitter is one of the most important social networks. Figures are available directly from the tweets and not disputable. Wykx (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Non-sequitur, and irrelevant to any Wikipedia policy. Nobody is disputing any figures. This discussion proposes that the topic of Twitter accounts as a group isn't notable. It doesn't comply with WP:LISTN in any way whatsoever. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are every week articles in the newspapers on twitter rankings of personalities. Just random articles of this month to illustrate: [15] [16]. Wykx (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's getting closer, but still not coverage about twitter rankings as a group, rather coverage of individuals in the context of twitter followings. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean [17] or [18] or [19] or [20]? Wykx (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wykx's sources above, "X is #Y on Twitter by followers" is commonly mentioned in the news. As for your proposal "that the topic of Twitter accounts as a group isn't notable", well I disagree. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as list must be constantly updated to be accurate. If you want to break it out to "most followed in November 2017", etc, that could work, but not this format. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nomination. This isn't an issue about reliable sources—the issue is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia covering notable topics of encyclopedic interest, not storage for a website's stats. Maybe some of the information could be merged into Twitter, but that is all. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elyse Sewell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject came in 3rd place in the first season of America's Next Top Model and parlayed that into a few years of an actual modeling career, mostly in Hong Kong where she appeared on the cover of Harper's Bazaar. She also stayed in the public eye for a while by blogging. Just a few days ago, PopSugar referred to her as "[p]erhaps the most successful of all the Top Model contestants". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one has been tough - while I see the point about having some success, being a runner-up and having a brief modeling career - even with publishing a book - doesn't seem notable. Especially since the aforementioned PopSugar article suggests she isn't in the public eye anymore. I'll cite Wikipedia:Subjective importance#Fame, notably about being time-bound and the line "Brief public exposure ... does not make one notable."

Also, I'm unconvinced that the people.com reference truly says that "she carved out a successful modeling career in East Asia" - seems to me like it was a fleeting career. = paul2520 (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has been nominated before. Then and now meets the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Real Matters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a company, not properly sourced to enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH: all of the references here are primary sources that cannot assist notability at all, such as its own press releases and/or routine inclusion in business directories, and even the few that look like reliable sources on the surface (Canadian Private Equity and "NewsChannel10") still turned out to be press releases or brief, unsubstantive blurbs when I ran them through the Wayback Machine to reverify what the dead links used to say. As always, every company is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- but this isn't sourced well enough to earn one. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its IPO in May of this year received coverage from Bloomberg and the Financial Post. The current state of the article does not include these sources or any mention of its IPO other than a change by an IP editor in September to list it as a public company. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ,,,, Anyone can do a better article than this and make it look less spammier than this, another spam, another waste of time. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This company is not notable, some of the sources in the article lead to broken pages and there is insufficient result from independent sources in my News search that can assert meeting WP:CORP. Also as company that deals with tech directly, independent source about them will surely be easier to locate online (if they edits) –Ammarpad (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography (1960–69). No need for a standalone article, but since the short is covered in the target, let's have a redirect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pancho's Hideaway (cartoon)[edit]

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

Per WP:N. I could not locate reliable secondary sources that verify the notability of the subject. Only sources located were IMDB-like, or places where you can watch the cartoon. Comatmebro (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or apply a new standard to all similar articles- If this isn't notable enough, then you have to remove a ton of other articles too. There seems to be an article for just about every looney tunes ever made.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just being a Looney Tunes cartoon should not be enough to establish notability. Per WP:NFILM, a film ought to have significant coverage from reliable sources to qualify as notable enough for an article. The only sources provided here are database entries, not significant coverage. There are some Looney Tunes cartoons which have received better coverage from reliable sources than what has been provided here; see, for example, Jerry Beck's The 100 Greatest Looney Tunes Cartoons (2010). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography (1960–69), where this animated short is covered in the list. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Club Tijuana. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Club Tijuana Reserves and Academy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Has remained unsourced since its creation. No sources found to show it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Not independently notable but a plausible search term. As we do with many reserve teams like this, the reserve squad and any future sourced prose can be dealt with in the main club article. Fenix down (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 Public (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unneeded content fork for a list of mostly nn names. Name could be redirected to Club Tijuana at editorial discretion. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - possible search term but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 09:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
redirect As stated above, Govvy (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Club Tijuana, doesn't seem notable but could be a little more useful as a redirect. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Club Universidad Nacional. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Club Universidad Nacional Reserves and Academy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability. Searches turned up virtually zero about this junior club of a major FC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Not independently notable but a plausible search term. As we do with many reserve teams like this, the reserve squad and any future sourced prose can be dealt with in the main club article. Fenix down (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 Public (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

redirect per Fenix down. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - possible search term but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 09:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect I am not sure how accurate the players lists are but the main article isn't that big and could hold the player lists. Govvy (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Club Universidad Nacional, doesn't seem notable but could be a little more useful as a redirect. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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