Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 October	26 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Martez[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP:NM. reddogsix (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An artist that fails WP:NMUSIC. None of the EPs and mix tapes appear to have made much substantial impact on any major music chart and he is not connected to a notable label. The coverage is not in-depth and fails WP:GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing turned up from a WP:BEFORE search for reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. A Train^talk 22:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Andrew Hutchins[edit]

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

Minor politician never elected to office (see politician notability guideline), not the subject of significant coverage, potentially undeclared conflict of interest (User:Scottandrewhutchins has 30k edits, so I'd assume somewhat familiar with the guidelines...), no suitable redirect targets. czar 23:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar 23:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. czar 23:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails our notabilty guideline for politicians. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. Subject isn't notable. –Miles Edgeworth^Talk 00:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously fails WP:NPOL and can't find any other evidence of meeting WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 09:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a non-winning candidate for political office does not get a person an article per WP:NPOL — and his notability claim as a writer is not referenced to media coverage about his writing, but to content where he was the bylined author of coverage about something else, which is not how you demonstrate a writer's notability either. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Does not otherwise meet WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unelected politician. Carrite (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SierraSil[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for this company/product. Refs show that it exists and that the product has been included in two scientific trials (but not discussed in the two papers). The final ref shows that it changed its image. None of this adds to notability or even approaching notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find significant coverage of this product in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anjaam (2008 film)[edit]

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

This article appears to fail WP:NFILM. Though it does have a listing in IMDB it is relatively thin in terms of information and, as noted in the notability guidelines, this does not confer notability in itself. A further Google search also provides very little information. Finally this article is an orphan with neither any individuals or the production company have an article further enhancing the fact it isn't notable. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and failing WP:NFILM. The only source use is user-submitted content and generally not reliable in Wikipedia WP:RS/IMDB. Attempt to find source also prove futile as nothing reliable, I can find. Ammarpad (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trackway (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This disambiguation page only links to partial title matches and examples, which are all described and linked in the primary topic trackway. No disambiguation is needed. Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not function as a dab page. It looks like an attempt at a broad-concept article, but the article at Trackway essentially already is one. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it functions neither as DAB page nor as an article and, having checked, there's nothing significant in it that isn't in Trackway. On the latter page I've then added a See Also hatnote to the DAB page, Track. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the entries (other than the primary topic) are legitimate dab entries. Besides, nearly all of them are already linked in Trackway, which makes this utterly pointless. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:37, 1 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 Move disambig to basepage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asghar Ali Shah (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Per WP:2DABS, a hatnote is preferable when there are only two topics and one is at the primary page. Whether a move is requested at some point is a separate issue, as it stands there is a primary page, from which a reader needs to click on a hatnote to a dab, then click on another link to get to the politician's article. Instead the reader could see instantly what other articles there are of this name (that there is just the one) and click on the hatnote to a direct link. No benefit to this circular route. Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move the newly created article about the boxer away from the usurped base title and then move the dab page over it: a quick web search didn't reveal a primary topic. – Uanfala 20:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move per Uanfala. I also don't think there's a clear primary topic. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Kannoujiya[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. No real claim to notability, even a badly sourced one. No sources out there that I found worth anything, and the ones present aren't anything to write home about. Appears to be a fairly mid to low level political participant, activist, or volunteer, and does not seem to have actually been elected to, or for that matter run for any public office. Possibly/likely a WP:NOTLINKEDIN problem. GMG ^talk 19:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails our notabilty guideline for politicians. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable party functionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated or sourced here passes any notability criterion whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this politician is obviously below WP:POLITICIAN. Ammarpad (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unelected politician. Carrite (talk) 13:12, 1 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. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GBR College[edit]

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

No sources, one line, no indication of notability, no links to it from other articles except indices. AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an accredited college offering undergraduate and postgraduate degrees. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Good, this is helpful info that could be used to improve the page. If I see more stuff like this, I'll support keeping the page. AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anjou Soares[edit]

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Fails our guidelines per WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because he was a high-level Christian priest of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Karachi per [1] [2] [3] and other refs in the article. Mar4d (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are linking what I searched before nominating. We don't have enough coverage in WP:RS to write without WP:OR per WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC. Note that he was CEO of a Diocese, not the Bishop. We keep Bishops even as stubs, with a diocesan administrator, we need sources. I ran some news archive searches, and failed to find anything. Mar4d, if you can source it, ping me to revisit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I am dubious as to whether a diocesan administrator is a high enough post to be notable without more. He may have been the bishop's right hand man, but he was not a bishop. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, not a bishop, just a priest with an administrative posting. He would need coverage that meets GNG standards beyond just the routine of doing his job here, which we don't have. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:08, 1 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AkinG Kalld Pedro[edit]

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

Rapper who released a couple of mixtapes and one self-published album. Minimal coverage in reliable sources, mostly just blurbs and blogs. Doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO. The author also created an article about the one non-notable self-published album at 358/2 Days (album), which would qualify for WP:A9 speedy deletion if the bio article is deleted. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:03, 18 October 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 October 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Source searches are providing no significant coverage in reliable sources; does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D'Arcy D'Souza[edit]

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

Much of it is written per WP:OR or the subject hasn't received coverage in reliable source. No coverage on his death in 2009. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. –Miles Edgeworth^Talk 00:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some references have been added by other users since the nom. Mar4d (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- He was clearly well thought of, but still NN. Long service does not create notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My condolences to the Fr.'s parishioners and friends. Fails GNG; NOTMEMORIAL. Carrite (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls fall short of the typical standard we hold for articles on clerics. Plenty of priests are long serving, and the overwhelming majority of them aren't notable even if we have coverage of it: its run of the mill. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cordt Baxmann[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG from a source search. I didn't think it was possible to be spammy about a fountain but Wikipedia isn't the place to talk about legends. DrStrauss talk 16:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia most certainly is a place to talk about legends, which are a major part of culture, but only notable legends. I have been unable to find any coverage of this one in reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was going on the assumption that "legends" implies only rumours as sources but hey, we're agreeing :P DrStrauss talk 09:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After 400 years there are still no good published sources on this guy. Notability not met.96.127.242.251 (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the first 3 words in the article and the one category, this is not an article on a fountain. The fountain clearly, without question, does not pass notability. Baxmann the individual, weather as a historical figure or as a fictional character/figure in folklore also does not pass notability. This is one of the worst examples of coat racking I have ever seen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 meeting WP:CSD#A7. Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nazish Lutfi[edit]

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

Non-notable person's bio. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted by Alex Shih, multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria CSD G4, CSD G11. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Netwealth[edit]

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

Recreation of previously deleted article. Still same problems as before: no notability, references are only incidental or are press releases masking as news articles (announcements of launch are no proof of notability), reads as an advertisement. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G4 / G11 (purely promo and recreation of previously deleted material). I participated in the 2016 discussion, and although I cannot see the deleted article, it's most likely the same advertorial. I requested a speedy deletion; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. I'm not convinced that cricket internationals in general somehow are exempt from WP:SPORTSEVENT because they are organised with two or three matches in a row usually, and may nominate some other article for nomination. However, picking the very first Test match of a country as an AfD was a bad choice. Fram (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan cricket team against Zimbabwe in the UAE in 2017–18[edit]

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

While international matches in other sports also get lots of coverage (announcement,n broadcast; match reports, mentioned in next matches), they usually aren't considered notable for Wikipedia (a World Cup final is notable, but e.g. qualification matches for the world cup are not notable even if they are decisive or mark the first appearance of a country or something similar: only exceptional cases are considered notable matches, and even the game that started the Football War doesn't have an article (yet: it probably could get one).

So, why would this single test match be notable contrary to what we generally accept for other sports? See WP:SPORTSEVENT Fram (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It will be Afghanistan's first ever Test match. If you have a working knowledge of cricket you will understand that this is a big event due to the ICC being so miserly in handing out Test status. Since say post WW2 only four countries have made their Test debut and two of them (Pakistan and Bangladesh) were already part of country that had Test status before they became independent. That's just the background though, from a Wikipedia perspective it's a notable match because it has significant coverage in independent reliable sources (a handful of these are already demonstrated in the article that was only created a couple of hours ago). Jenks24 (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason why any of this applies to cricket and not to other sports? Significant coverage in independent sources is available for every single official international soccer match, but we have a rule (which is fairly strictly applied) not to create articles on these. In fact, this seems to apply to every team sport but cricket. We e.g. don't have an article on the first match of Italy as part of the Six Nations, or any other "first" of the kind. Why the exception for cricket? Fram (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would assume because of the way that cricket is structured, generally as tours between two nations. Italy's first match as part of the Six Nations would no doubt be covered at the 2000 Six Nations Championship article (I would argue that their first match, a win against Scotland, is probably notable but that is really neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion). But for cricket there isn't really a greater tournament this is part of, this is it and it's notable in its own right. Most tours like this involve more than one match, that this one only has one is mainly due to the unique nature of the occasion. And following on from the rugby example, you'll see that like in cricket most tours seem to have their own articles, eg 2017 British and Irish Lions tour to New Zealand or 2013 Australia national rugby union team tour of Great Britain, Ireland and Italy. More than likely an example could be found of a one-match tour but rugby union is not really my forte. Jenks24 (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Seems rather overkill to have these "tour" articles as well. Dutch cricket team in Zimbabwe in 2017–18 are basically three friendly international matches in a row (against same team, in same location). At least the one under discussion here has the distinction of being Afghanistan first Test (which might put it across the "something really special" threshold), but all these others? Yes, rugby (which I brought up first, stupidly ;-) ) has these tour articles as well. I guess some closer look at many of them may be needed. Looking at International cricket in 2016–17, these tours are very common (some 50 between September and March). Fram (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - They're not really friendlies in the sense that soccer (football) have them. There is nowhere else for this clearly well-covered (in reliable sources) topic to go, unless you want to condense those 50 articles you've mentioned into one gigantic page. Probably the most notable cricket matches outside of a world cup (considering Pakistan and India don't tour each other anymore) are happening this summer and they'll be written up at English cricket team in Australia in 2017–18. This is largely what international cricket is, apart from a world cup every four years that the majority of teams involved don't even need to qualify for. Jenks24 (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pretty much per Jenks24. Ignoring the fact that this will be a full international tour by two teams with Test match status (not "test"), this will be the first Test match played by Afghanistan. That alone will meet WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly meets the WP:GNG, with multiple reliable sources. And it hasn't even happened yet. Harrias ^talk 18:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't believe I'm upholding the fuckiGNG but there we go. It is Afghanistan's first Test so it is a highly notable match, and the same with Ireland's first Test too. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as having already passed GNG and clearly being the kind of thing which will continue to exceed that standard. Comments pointing to the more "piecemeal" structure of international cricket are entirely valid as well, although with recent plans from the ICC there may end up being something more coherent emerging. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You Are Under Surveillance[edit]

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

No working references provided and none found via Google search. No claim of notability in the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 12:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? - I would normally say redirect to the band... but... geez is that article a mess, with patently unreliable sources mixed in with otherwise reliable ones that don't seem to mention the subject at all. It's hard to say that article doesn't also warrant a good hard look at deletion. The names of both are so exceedingly generic that it's hard to say definitively that there's nothing out there, but if there is, I haven't found it. GMG ^talk 13:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons given above. The king of the sun (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per reasons stated by GreenMeansGo. –Miles Edgeworth^Talk 17:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rabindra Jha[edit]

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

non-notable actor, Fails WP:NACTOR. XFhumu^Talk 20:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, Fails WP:NACTOR Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete non notable. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:36, 1 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. per consensus (non-admin closure) Nightfury 08:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simplii Financial[edit]

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

Delete No indications of independent notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Give the article some time, as the bank doesn't officially launch until November 1. More references are available on the article's talk page. Also, this article has equal notability to the Tangerine Bank article. Daylen (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be that guy and despite the fact I am in favout of Keep, I need to remind you of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd give it some time, as PC Financial doesn't merge into Simplii Financial until November 1, and we should see some more sources by then. However, in it's current state, I don't think it would survive deletion. –Miles Edgeworth^Talk 17:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Taking over from PC Financial. It's basically a re-brand. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Note: I am the editor which turned User:Daylen's redirect into an article) - Currently subject of coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources, local and national, with depth going beyond simply the announcement of the new division (i.e. commentary from researchers and analysts on implications) meeting Wikipedia:ORGCRIT. As Miles noted above, more coverage will likely occur following the formal transfer of PCF's banking customers to Simplii in November. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 21:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article, but redirect President's Choice Financial to it post Nov 1. The latter is pure promo / sales brochure, and the article under discussion would actually be an improvement. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @K.e.coffman: I disagree with your point of turning President's Choice Financial into a redirect. The company still manages credit cards and PC Points for all stores/websites under the Loblaw Companies banners. Daylen (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Daylen. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also agree with Daylen, Simplii is only going to be the banking customers from PCF. The PCF brand will continue to be used for the credit card and insurance products offered by Loblaw subsidiaries President's Choice Bank and PC Financial Insurance Brokers (respectively). RA0808 ^talk _contribs 21:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nov 1st comments above. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hard Keep this article - 1 Nov 17 will be a key date on which this new banking enterprise will begin functioning, affecting the entire Canadian banking landscape.Cpt ricard (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. When it earns its own article, then fine, but all this talk of "soon to redefine Canadian banking" sounds a bit WP:CRYSTAL for an article at this time. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Letts[edit]

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

This person isn't notable and the article is full of BLP violations (claims by newspapers that are unproven). CommotioCerebri (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable individual with long term coverage. BLP issues, if present, should be addressed in article. Coverage is sustained, long lasting, and in good sources - e.g.: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9].Icewhiz (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Icewhiz is completely correct. When we see an article on a notable topic, which triggers a concern for us, but the problem is potentially fixable, policy compliant contributors know they should never jump to a nomination to delete. Articles on notable topics should only be nominated for deletion if there is a record, on the talk page, that good faith contributors have worked hard to agree on a version of the article, and, after long effort, are hopelessly deadlocked.

I am calling for snow keep, because I know, for a certain fact, that Icewhiz's excellent point has been explained to nominator CommotioCerebri numerous times before. This nomination is an instance of WP:IDHT. Geo Swan (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - The Jihadi Jack? I know he's no John but come on. I'm not going to even entertain this AFD with a thoughtful response. If the nom could not even glance at the coverage and impact surrounding this man, his statement has no ground to stand on.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep - Per Icewhiz. Subject of the article is clearly notable, and has multiple reliable sources backing that up. Suggest close per WP:SNOW. –Miles Edgeworth^Talk 17:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Artw (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it as easily passes WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep Well-sourced article on patently notable individual.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seatalk[edit]

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

This is basically just a product listing, and if you filter out all the content related to the Seattle Seahawks, there's basically nothing to write anything more than a product listing with. Even looking at books, it all seems to be specs and instructions for boaters. I would normally say that it should be redirected to Raymarine Marine Electronics, but that "article" itself is in terrible shape, and I'm not sure there's a compelling reason to prefer Raymarine over the Seahawks. GMG ^talk 12:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Article doesn't have any sources, nor does the subject seem to be notable. –Miles Edgeworth^Talk 00:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 expired WP:PROD; no need for a third relist. ansh 666 20:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kosar Buriro[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage in WP:RS found. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 06:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 12:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Locked Door (2012 film)[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Prod removed stating that there were to review cited but failed to say where these reviews are. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ten seconds on Google turns up these:

http://www.chinesefilms.cn/1/2012/03/07/141s7899_2.htm
http://ent.sina.com.cn/m/c/2012-05-25/17113640392.shtml
http://ent.sina.com.cn/m/c/2012-05-21/02103635153.shtml

Likely there are more Chinese language sources. I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia's notability standards for foreign language films, so I'll leave that decision to others. Deli nk (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia's notability standards for foreign-language films are exactly the same as for English-language films. They also do not discriminate according to the language of sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll back what 86 says. I'll leave it to others to judge the Chinese language sources, machine translation didn't help me enough. But the first linked, not an independent reliable source. It's an organization that was created to promote Chinese films to the outside world. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filmbiz.asia is the official site of Film Business Asia. Where is your proof that "It's an organization that was created to promote Chinese films to the outside world", and even if it is, why isn't it an independent reliable source if it has no connection to the film? Timmyshin (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To quote their about page "our aim is to introduce exceptional domestically produced films to the outside world" [10]. Please take some time to understand what a independent reliable source actually is. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone whose "aim is to introduce exceptional domestically produced films to the outside world" could also be a reliable source that is independent of those films. The two are certainly not mutually exclusive. Deli nk (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need a bit more assessment of the sources provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As above, in addition this will be the final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 12:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is clear WP:SOFTDELETE, since the article at present obviously fails WP:NFILM, and the person who deprodded it has made no attempt to improve it. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable film which falls short of WP:NFILM.–Celestina007 (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not notable. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Single-stream technology[edit]

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

The article is by a WP:SPA who mostly uses as refs links to where you can buy the various products of "eyeson". Seems like pure spam, really. Dicklyon (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search shows that there are a lot of things possessing the attribute of "single-stream technology", but I was not able to locate any in-depth, independent, reliable sources (per WP:RS) on this particular technology. Without such sources, this videoconferencing topic fails notability WP:GNG and verifiability WP:V. The article itself is largely promotional of the eyeson product that uses it, to the point the article could be considered a WP:COATRACK for eyeson. I don't see any good redirect target, either. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the patent EP2498491^[1] a reliable source (per WP:RS) on this particular technology? Don't we accept the European Patent Office as an independent and reliable institution? --Otto Nickl ([User talk:Otto Nickl|talk]]) 07:11, 16 August 2017 (CET)

Patents are reliable sources for some info, but aren't very useful at establishing notability, or terminology; they're pretty nearly like self-published papers. Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have add a reference to an independent article from Gartner Inc. and deleted all links to eyeson. --Otto Nickl (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2017 (CET)

References

^ Patent EP2498491 A1 Verfahren und Vorrichtung zur audio- und videobasierten Echtzeit-Kommunikation, September 12th, 2012, EUROPEAN PATENT, Retrieved Oct 16, 2017

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 12:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the most tech savvy person, and probably not enough so to do it myself competently, but probably merge and redirect to Multipoint control unit, in the hope that the coverage of the broader subject can actually be turned into something resembling an encyclopedia article. If all the unsourced content currently in this article is removed (in addition to the content that would basically be a product listing or technical manual even if was well sourced), there's really not enough here for even a stand alone section, much less a stand alone article. There's some mentions in books, but a lot of it seems to be about literally any other topic, including recycling, fertilizer, and apparently metallurgy. There's passing mention here, but it just passing mention and nothing more.

Even then, a redirect may not survive indefinitely if someone decides to write an article on single stream recycling, which seems to overall have a good deal more coverage than this topic (e.g., [11], [12]). Although I'm still not totally sure if there's enough to write a stand alone article on that either. GMG ^talk 13:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This appears to be one company's terminology for something many companies offer (my best man works for one). The description here is a lightly rewritten version of the article on the company's page, which is where anyone searching this term would want to end up anyway. I can't find any independent NOTEability either in the references or the topic itself. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global U8 Consortium[edit]

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

No notability asserted, no sources found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a real organization but is not very high profile in English speaking areas. Wasn't added to List of higher education associations and alliances for some reason so it may not be notable. https://www.iff.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/iff/en/documents/press-kit/pm20140611-university-magdeburg-and-fraunhofer-iff-join-global-education-and-research-network.pdf Randomeditor1000 (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Miles Edgeworth^Talk 17:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 12:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete not able to find better sourcing than what is there-- company website. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:42, 1 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wire (Indian web publication)[edit]

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

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

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

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

First reference - Alexa Site info.
Second reference- self website source.
Third reference- Business standard is third party source. But Business Standard is a notable newspaper with business related news. And the given source is like company list, not focussing only on The Wire, but "The Quint is one of several portals in the Indian cyberspace which are re-imagining news. The Wire, Quartz, Scroll, Catch News are among the other 'original content websites"
Fourth reference- About Us. The Wire.
Fifth reference- Related website.
Sixth reference- The news about this website being launched, as it is founded by a notable person.
Seventh reference- Columbia Journalism Review, article not exclusively about the website. More about the founder Siddharth Varadarajan, who is already notable.

Other sources are related to this website for being in the news for writing controversial articles about famous politicians. The "third party independent" articles are more about the controversies, denials, counter-accusations. Marvellous Spider-Man 16:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that this article merits deletion (or even nomination for deletion) under Wikipedia's Articles for deletion policy. Though one may criticize the quality or relevance of specific sources used in the article, in general the sources are relevant to the ideas they are being cited to support, and to the article generally.

A user advocating for deletion, Marvellous Spider-Man, has repeatedly complained that the sources cited are not solely about The Wire, but include other information. This, Marvellous Spider-Man contends, merits the article's deletion. The logic behind this contention is flawed. A source need not be solely about the article in question; it just has to have some information that is relevant to what it is being cited for. This is the standard for citations across Wikipedia, including for the encyclopedia's most established and high-quality articles. For example, in the Wikipedia page on the element "Boron" - which is well cited and complies with wikipedia's policies - the second citation is "Atomic weights of the elements 2013 (IUPAC Technical Report)". The majority of this source does not concern the Wikipedia article's topic, Boron, nevertheless, the information it does contain about boron is relevant to the article. Thus the reference is a useful and appropriate one. This is just one example of the phenomenon of legitimate Wikipedia sources that contain information beyond what they are cited for.

The Wire is a prominent and popular publication and website: the Wikipedia page on the website is well sited and impartial. As a result, it meets the essential criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, and it's deletion is unnecessary and inappropriate. Any specific problems in the article can be fixed by edits, and other users have not demonstrated why deletion is merited.

Finally, I would like to add some context to the nomination for deletion of this article. The article's namesake publication - The Wire - has published a variety of controversial articles about Indian politics. In response, The Wire has been threatened with lawsuits and possible coercion by the Indian government and others. Such persecution has been especially acute since the site published an article called "The Golden Touch of Jay Amit Shah" on October 8th, 2017. Only a few days after the backlash to this article's publication in India, The Wire's Wikipedia page was nominated for deletion under flimsy pretexts. One cannot help but wonder whether the article's nomination for deletion is part of a broader attempt to censor, delegitimize and obscure The Wire. A Wikipedia page cannot advertise or advocate for any side in a conflict or controversy, but should stick to the facts as supported by robust references: the article on The Wire does this. As such, to delete the article would reflect a bias - with Wikipedia seeming to take the side of the current Indian administration in its conflict with The Wire. To uphold Wikipedia's ideals of impartiality and objectivity, this article should not be deleted. Screensofthought (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)— Screensofthought (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No coherent justification for this article's deletion is put forth by users, therefore its deletion is unjustified. Marvellous Spider-Man seems to imply that information contained in the Wikipedia page on The Wire is already contained in the Wikipedia page of one of its editors, Siddharth Varadarajan, and that this renders the page redundant. In actuality, The Wire involves many individual editors and journalists, of which Varadarajan is just one player: the publication is not at all synonymous with him. Varadarajan's page contains only a small amount of information about The Wire, which barely overlaps with the information contained in this article, thus concerns about redundancy are not legitimate. Siddharth Varadarajan and The Wire are seperate entities that are prominent in their own rights and each merits a separate page. Marvellous Spider-Man also seems to object to the fact that some of this article's sources mention Siddharth Varadarajan in addition to The Wire. As Screensofthought has said above, inclusion of information about other topics does not invalidate the relevant information contained within this article's references. 96.246.32.210 (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC) — 96.246.32.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No !votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 12:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (web). The CJS article quoted by the nominator [13] discusses the business model of the wire extensively. Numerous articles appear to have been written about the two court cases against it, focusing the discussion on the mission of the wire (not just reporting the outcomes of the cases) (cf. [14], [15], [16], [17] - I just pulled these off the first couple of pages of a google search, there are many more). --regentspark (comment) 17:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned in The New York Times this morning in an op-ed on censorship in India [18]. There seem to be enough references for a keep.--regentspark (comment) 12:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This passes Notability guideline for web content, also brief search through above newslinks yields numerous instances of detailed mention. Keep and tag for improvement rather than delete –Ammarpad (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Apple A11. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Neural Engine[edit]

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

No need to keep an article which contains only two sentences Darius robin (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 14:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator fails to advance a valid reason for deletion, per WP:TOOLITTLE. We do not delete stub articles based on length or word count but rather notability, and the first three refs are reliable sources. Enough to meet WP:GNG, imo. Now maybe there's a commonsense merge target....? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge I disagree with the nominators reasoning for deletion but in my opinion the Neural Engine itself isn't notable, the A11 chip is and therefore these two sentences should just be merged into the A11 article... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 06:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, no objection to a merge, if preferable, per WP:PRESERVE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the time of the nomination this article does indeed appear to have been a stub... but that isn't a reason for deletion. It looks like some content has been added to the article after its listing here, maybe as a good faith effort to to stave off deletion, but the latest additions may need some editing as it reads a little like fluff. While the content could be merged into Apple A11, I'm in favor of the article remaining a stand-alone article as I anticipate it will evolve along the lines of Apple motion coprocessors. —RP88 ^(talk) 09:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 13:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the information itself is useful but not freestanding, merge into the A11 and AI accelerator articles as appropriate. Dbsseven (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 12:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable subject, and although it is related to the A11 it is sufficiently significant in its own right to deserve an article. The king of the sun (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge - ~~Subject is definitely notable, nominator didn't specify a specific reason for deletion.~~ Per WP:TOOSOON. I wouldn't be opposed to merging it with A11, if there is consensus for that. –Miles Edgeworth^Talk 17:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lots of sources. Unique and prominent feature to a high profile product. Probably not the last we'll hear of this from Apple. Probably a common feature to similar products in the future from other manufacturers/designers. -- Henriok (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There are not enough sources that show the Apple Neural Engine is independently notably from the A11 chip. Merge is the best option. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Apple A11. Unless we're making a special case because we all love every bit of every Apple product, WP:NOTINHERITED seems to apply here, as may WP:TOOSOON. References are all to tech-related sources, whilst this one makes it clear the Neural Engine is a trademark-type name for an element of the Apple A11. One source I found just dismisses the name as a "buzz-word". I must declare my lack of technical expertise here, but merging seems to make sense at this point in time. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: This is a AI accelerator, a topic which does not appear to have spawned any articles for the similar functionality found in, say, AMD. I suspect this will change in the future, especially as it will likely be incorporated into the A12 and so forth, but for now this is a feature of one architecture and should be covered there. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I agree, we either merge it with the AI accelerator article or the Apple A11 article. I’d prefer merging with the A11 article. We’ll make a dedicated article when Apple makes more generations of this. Darius robin (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Antwerp#Culture. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antwerpian dialect[edit]

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

I couldn't find nothing that distinguish this dialect from Brabantian dialect Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a one-sentence article that hardly supplies any more information than what should be obvious from the article's title, i.e. that the Antwerpian dialect is spoken in Antwerp. Vorbee (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - article brings nothing to the encyclopedia. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 15:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. A cursory search reveals there are books entirely dedicated to the subject [19] [20], and at least two dictionaries have been published [21] [22]. Also noting that generally the dialect spoken in an urban area may be quite different from the rural dialects surrounding it. Now, it's a separate question whether it's better to have a one-sentence stub or a redirect to the relevant paragraph in Antwerp#Culture. – Uanfala 23:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (for now) to Brabantian dialect. Quick look at the Dutch article, tells a few distinguishes from Brabantian but as the article looks now with merely a lead sentence, a redirect is preferable. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If this gets redirected, then a better target at present would be Antwerp#Culture. – Uanfala 21:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 12:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poor one-sentence article. Not needed in my view. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Antwerp#Culture. Carrite (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Steam Powered Giraffe. Per consensus. History left for selective merging if required (non-admin closure) Nightfury 08:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Globe of Yesterday's Tomorrow[edit]

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

fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~Redirect - The band itself is arguably not notable. A WP:BEFORE search did nothing in the way of providing reliable sources that could convince me this passes WP:GNG and the references in the article are not dependable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I originally voted delete but it looks like the band article will be kept so there is an actual redirect target.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to band article, likely search term at least. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 12:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to band article. Non-notable album. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 12:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Steam Powered Giraffe; WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmie Kersmo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMODEL WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO nothing of interest found in a WP:BEFORE search. None of the sources are in-depth coverage in a WP:RS Domdeparis (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden -related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion -related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can only find passing mentions, no significant coverage. --bonadea contributions talk 12:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -there are mentions of him and his career. The minimum amount has been reached. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind explaining which sources are in-depth secondary coverage as per WP:GNG? Domdeparis (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you are peeved after the Demitz debacle but if you are going to !vote keep on all the associated articles that I nominate for deletion you really need to give valid arguments. Simple mentions are not sufficient to meet GNG. GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I looked at the sources and I could not find the coverage necessary but I may have missed something so please don't hesitate to cite the sources you feel are enough that will help the others who !vote and I will happily withdraw the nomination if I feel it is enough. Domdeparis (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Get out if here... You lost it at Demitz. Log out of Wikipedia for an hour. Good luck.BabbaQ (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Domdeparis got a point here. In the last article I voted as you because there were sources. Could you please give us the sources here on this page that makes you vote keep? Adville (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have archived several dead links that I read elsewhere. And added a few new sources and information to the article.BabbaQ (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking better especially the Cosmo bit but for me it doesn't cut it as meeting GNG. But I'll let others decide. Domdeparis (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still not close to meeting GNG. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL would seem to apply here - a model will of course have his face displayed, it's part and parcel of the job, and the so-called "famous" adverts don't seem to have been notable per WP's definition. Or if the ads were written about, which I don't know, Kersmo's name was not mentioned in any case. I have looked for sources in English and Swedish, but again it's either trivial mentions or non-RS sources like blogs. --bonadea contributions talk 06:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Harem just a side role. Foto modeling, but not so visible for that on externa places (googled) dressman is huge, but not notorius. The vodka, ok but its just a taste and the source a vine blogg. Too weak sources. I really tried to find better sources. Adville (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medium rare KEEP refer to BabbaQ Boeing720 (talk) 05:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kersmo was one of the most high profile people ever seen on all the major commercial channels of Swedish television, featured for several years centrally or solo, both dressed and undressed, in very frequent ads by a major Nordic clothier. Anyone who watched television in Sweden in those years would immediately know his face. If that had not been the case, this article would probably have never been created.

If this were really the case where are the sources? Domdeparis (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for the same reason as given by the anonymous poster above. The Dressman ads are very visible and well known in Sweden. /FredrikT (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article about the ads but the person. Notability is not inherited. Add sources that mention him and this will help prove his notability. Domdeparis (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appearing in ads or photo shoots if you're a model adds absolutely nothing to notability per the notability guideline. They are at best primary sources that are not independent of the subject, and as such don't cut it. The only thing the ads show is that Kersmo showed up for work and did what models do at work.

There are just too few WP:RS to establish notability, but the article is padded with non-RS to make it look supported. Model Mayhem and Promod appear to be model agencies, which means they aren't independent and questionable as RS. I don't really know what the Fashonisto is, but it doesn't look major. He's mentioned among others as one of the Harem participants. The Cosmopolitan article is the best argument for notability, but the scarcity of other significant mentions in WP:RS means that I must not-vote for delete. Sjö (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources are sufficient to show notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough WP:SIGCOV in reliable media to establish notability.–Celestina007 (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No source is in-depth. Small appearances and mentions does not prove notability. /Elzo 90 (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No further consensus since last relist (non-admin closure) Nightfury 08:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grail Quest (The Fantasy Trip)[edit]

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

Long out of print adventure for long out of print RPG system. Fails the GNG going away (with the only extant review being from a magazine owned by the fellow who wrote the RPG system) and any other notability standard pertaining to RPG adventures. A redirect to the system would ordinarily be called for, but would fail WP:XY, given the odds someone doing a search for "grail quest" would be seeking mainstream Arthurian legendry instead Ravenswing 05:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to The Fantasy Trip. BOZ (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would you like to put forth a policy-based rationale to advocate either? Ravenswing 13:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG with multiple independent RS'es that discuss the topic. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sourcing of the article meets GNG with independent references over three decades. Not sure what the nom is on about. Newimpartial (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... the fact that the nom (who has seen far far too many airy assertions about the validity of sources at AfD) would like very much to see these sources for himself, and find out whether they do, indeed, provide the "significant coverage" to the subject that the GNG requires, as well as ascertain whether they're actually reliable sources. Happily, my local library network's got one of the books, so we'll see. (Just out of curiosity, have you seen the sources yourself?) Ravenswing 14:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You do know that the fact you can't see these yourself isn't a criterion for deletion, right? WP:SOURCEACCESS applies, as does WP:AGF unless there's some clear reason to disbelieve the sources being added are legitimate and properly characterized, which in that case would be a bigger editor conduct issue than anything else... Jclemens (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll reiterate: I've seen far too claims that sources meet the requirements of the GNG when they did nothing of the sort to just say "Oooh, sources!" and walk on. Did you yourself review those sources before voting Keep? Of course you must have, and I welcome you bringing me up to speed on in what detail they cover the subject. Ravenswing 17:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing I don't have a 1980 run of Space Gamer but I know what it's likely to say; I've read Schick before and own Appelcline. Anyway, you are illicitly reversing the onus about sources, presumably out of some kind of WP:IDONTLIKEIT mentality. Please don't bring that to AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ You would, then, have no problem with restating exactly what Appelcline says about the subject, then, would you? Ravenswing 17:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appelcline notes the publication of Grail Quest as part of Metagaming's initial push to support The Fantasy Trip under the leadership of Guy McLimore, who became line editor.

I will admit that Grail Quest receives less ink than Treasure of the Silver Dragon, but that is because of its real-world treasure hunt tie-in, not their relative importance to RPG publishing. Newimpartial (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Their "relative importance" isn't something the GNG takes into consideration, as I'm sure you know. It's coverage. Are we talking several paragraphs about Grail Quest here, or are we talking something like "Among McLimore's credits are X, Y, Grail Quest and Z" ... ? The Space Gamer review doesn't satisfy the GNG; we're talking a magazine published just a few months before by the company that produced it, and one owned by the company which at the time was seeking to buy the game system. Right now, these assumptions that the subject meets the GNG rise and fall on just these two cites. Ravenswing 18:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So ... my local library just put a copy of Schick into my hands, and it's a capsule encyclopedia of RPG products; there are thousands listed. Here's the sum total of the Grail Quest reference: "Solo scenario usable with TFT, Melee, or Wizard. The PCs are Knights of the Round Table, searching the countryside for the Holy Grail. Digest-sized box, 32-pg book, counters, die, Metagaming, 1980."
This is as painfully inadequate a reference to meet the GNG as it would be to use the reference to support my notability (as it happens, I'm the listed author or co-author of several gamebooks and scenarios mentioned in the book). Would anyone care to proffer a reference for this product that actually meets the GNG? Ravenswing 23:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, Ravenswing, that is a GNG-compliant reference. It is an independent source, and a long discussion is not required. Also, please note that the sourcing requirements for BLP articles (as your WP article would be, unless you are posting as a revenant) are considerably more strict than those for published works, especially for forms such as 1970s RPG products where the print references exist but can be difficult to acquire and/or verify. You seem to be applying unnecessarily strict, non-GNG compliant standards on an IDONTLIKEIT basis. Newimpartial (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail," "* We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list."

There is no way in creation (and certainly not as it is uniformly applied on Wikipedia)) that this represents "significant coverage," and there is nothing about 1980s RPG products that immunize them from the GNG's requirements. You'd be better off finding legitimate GNG-compliant sources than in incivilly throwing slurs to cover the lack. Are you then declining to present Appelcline's cite in full, while I'm thinking about it? Ravenswing 05:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to misunderstand the requirements of the GNG, which is intended to ensure that an adequate article can be written from reliable sources, including secondary sources, which is clearly the case here. The topic is directly and non-trivially engaged in multiple independent sources, which is the requirement.

I have summarized Appelcline's discussion of the topic and assessed its significance above, which is more than I am required to do. I am certainly not going to type it in as well, though others are free to do so. Per policy, though, GNG is certainly met. Newimpartial (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: GF Relisting. I see there is an active discussion here, feel free to close however if inappropriate
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 12:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the subject has a section in Rooster Teeth, I have redirected the title to that section. bd2412 T 02:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Camp[edit]

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

Animated web series not covered by independent reliable sources. Fails GNG, and NFILM. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, not a directory, and not a website for indiscriminate coverage. I tried to re-establish a redirect [[23] but it was reverted and no reliable sources were added after a number of edits by the reverting editor ([24], [25], [26]). The series has not received full-length reviews by nationally known critics, is not historically notable, has not recieved any major awards, and has not been taught at colleges or universities, and so on. The article itself is merely routine information as if this were a TV Guide for the web. -- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesnt matter if it has full-length reviews. its made by Rooster Teeth and it deserves its own page. Crazybob2014 (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actually, @Crazybob2014: significant coverage in reliable sources matters a lot. Being made by a notable company doesn't make this topic notable -- notability is not inherited (if it worked that way, we'd have an awful lot of very trivial articles -- look how many shows Rooster Teeth has made). Camp Camp fails to meet the general notability guideline. I did a bit of searching, and I couldn't find a single article that I would call "significant coverage in a reliable source". I did find a few instances of reliable sources covering Camp Camp (Entertainment Weekly, Mashable, TubeFilter, Animation World Network), but it was all trivial coverage -- most of them were just a few short paragraphs to accompany a trailer. --IagoQnsi (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 12:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing the basic notability guideline WP:GNG, no WP:SIGCOV and the invalid reason for creating it. Per author own admission (above) it was created not because it is notable per se, but because the author thinks since "its made by Rooster Teeth [it must have] its own page". Ammarpad (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I believe one of the bases to delete this page to be slightly misguided. I do not believe WP:NFILM policies to be relevant to this web series media– "significant coverage" is not needed for web content, unlike it is for films. Granted, WP:INHERITWEB also concurs that although it is created by a notable company, it is not inherently notable because of it. However, IagoQnsi has compiled a list of other sources that although has been dismissed as trivial, I would argue is notable (enough to satisfy this requirement, at least) as the contents are of sizable length, solely discusses the material in question, and ~~offers information that cannot be gathered through the accompanying trailer~~ (I must amend this. The detail offered may come from a press release.)– it is not just a passing mention and does not need continuing coverage.
Concerning WP:WEB (as opposed to NFILM), it is stated that "when evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture." I am unsure to what extent this means, but at the very least– this web content has often been topic of discussion on the Tumblr platform. I don't know if that is of any relevance to this debate, or to WP:WEB, but I figured I'd offer up that information. — ^Systematic_Anarchy ( t • c ) 23:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— SystematicAnarchy (talk • contribs) has made only one edit on their userpage outside this topic.
Delete - notability is required - please see WP:GNG - and this doesn't make the grade by quite a long way. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG fail, and no SNGs brought forth to save it. I would agree with SystematicAnarchy except I want some more news articles to satisfy the GNG for me. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 01:58, 2 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. As mentioned in the last relisting comment, there is a clear keep, and it has only become stronger since the relisting. It is true that additional sources are necessary, however that is a maintenance process, and as AfD is not for cleanup this is no longer a subject for AfD. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hafeez (chemist)[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the two refs supplied in the article. AfD is not a venue for cleanup. Also, this source describes him as a chief chemist, and a "leading politician of the Pakistan Movement." Mar4d (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, familiarize yourself with WP:GNG and WP:V because no article can pass GNG with namecheck or single source discussing him. Greenbörg (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can Agree with User:Greenbörg. Delete this until someone demonstrate that the subject is indeed worthy enough to merit a bio on WP. --Saqib (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this is a local story; trivial, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete generally we do not base articles on opinion pieces. When they call the person covered "unsung" and related un statements, it seems fair to saying they are unnotable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Although the July article was in the Opinion section of the magazine[Dr. Abdul Hafeez - the unsung, uncared and unused scientist of Pakistan, Defence Journal (Pakistan), July 2000], the June 2000 article was a secondary cover story[27]. Unless Defence Journal isn't reliable, it seems that this individual passes WP:NOR, WP:V, etc. One issue is that the two references are not independent of each other, and thus the article doesn't clearly overcome WP:NPOV. But from what I see, the subject seems suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- sources establish sufficient notability. The subject is long dead, so there's no promotionalism concerns. An acceptable article at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I failed to find coverage in multiple sources discussing him in detail. He is dead but still no one noted his death. Delete for me again. Greenbörg (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that given there are a sufficient set of sources in English for WP:GNG. No-one has bothered to do a search in his own language, based on his name in Urdu script or searched in Pakistani sources. This is a clear keep. Indeed a cursory search for "عبدالحفیظ" shows a number of things which are probably good sources, I don't have the time or inclination to search for sources in a language I don't know so I will leave this to someone who doesn’t need to use google translate. Dysklyver 11:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion - as above Pakistani translators may be needed to investigate international sources. I do understand there is a clear keep however, further sources are needed to affirm notability. One source IMO isn't enough
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 12:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because POF, which he founded, seems notable to warrant the inclusion of its founder. Nuke (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for more sources. Clearly identified as leading weapon scientist in WP:RS and many more non-English sources. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of territorial entities where Afrikaans and Dutch are official languages[edit]

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

For one thing, this is a full article, not a list as the title would lead one to expect. Aside from that, I don't see the value of a single article combining information about the official status in various locations of an arbitrary pair of languages. This article spells out the fact that Dutch and Afrikaans are closely related, but that's tangential to the question of the countries in which a specific language has official status. It really isn't different from having an article on territorial entities where, say, Tamil and Swahili have official status. Each language might support its own article, but combining them into one isn't useful. Largoplazo (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree This is odd, because the same articles already exist on the Dutch, Dutch and Afrikaans Wikipedia. They both included Afrikaans and Dutch in the same article, like it is common to address Dutch and Afrikaans in the same article (see here, here and here). The proposal for deletion is a proposal to fast. You should have considered another proposal (f.e. change the title) or just talk to the writer (= me) to address your concerns. Direct nomination without asking is just rude.I90Christian (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@I90Christian: please refrain from decorating your comments here with templates, per WP:AFDFORMAT. thank you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing how those three articles, of which one is about the narrow topic of the recognition of Dutch in South Africa, and the others of which are each about recognition of one of the two languages, are pertinent to this article that merges the two topics together. Also, different language Wikipedias are distinct projects. The existence of an article on another Wikipedia doesn't even guarantee that it passes muster there (it may be that it qualifies for deletion but no one has addressed it), let alone does it have a role in determining the status of a corresponding article here. Deletion decisions here are based on English Wikipedia's guidelines.

So, for example, I do see that the Dutch article on the recognition of Dutch has an Afrikaans section. I don't know the practices on Dutch Wikipedia, so I don't know whether it's accepted there that Afrikaans stands even today as a subcategory of Dutch. As far as I know, someone will come along and remove that section on the same grounds I would, as a digression from the topic of the article. Meanwhile, here, even the fact that you mentioned Afrikaans explicitly in the title indicates an awareness that readers here will consider it a separate language from Dutch. Whatever sense, if there is one, that Afrikaans is Dutch may underlie practices on Dutch Wikipedia, I don't believe that that sense would be held by editors here. Largoplazo (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About deletion nomination without asking being rude: I don't know what I would have asked you. I didn't have any doubts. It was clear that the combination made sense to you, but I disagreed and I wanted to put this in front of the community for consideration. Largoplazo (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. From a very cursory Google search sources exist which discuss the history of Dutch and Afrikaans as an official language in South Africa. [28] [29] [30]. Presumably a deeper search would turn up sources for the other nations, if not academic sources, then at least official governmental sources. I'm not sure what is the point of the comparison to Tamil and Swahili. Afrikaans is a linguistic descendant of Dutch developed by Dutch settlers in South Africa, while Swahili and Tamil do not have such a history AFAIK. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)(Temporarily striking 18:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC))[reply]

I addressed that Afrikaans is related to Dutch, and stated that I don't see what difference that makes. They are, today, two separate languages, each with its own set of places where it's official. Largoplazo (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're two language with a good degree of mutual intelligibility (see Afrikaans#cite_note-15). One developed as a daughter language of the other in the relatively recent past compared to other mother-daughter language pairs, and several countries have them as official languages. Off the top of my head, I can't think of another language pair that would be analogous. Saying that the Afrikaans-Dutch language pair is analogous to the Tamil-Swahili pair as you did in your nomination statement is incorrect and a misrepresentation of the former language pair's special relationship. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy is perfectly good in the absence of an explanation as to why a degree of interrelatedness beyond a given threshold (and what threshold is that?) suddenly makes it a good idea to have an article on Wikipedia that's about two things that aren't the same thing, where the information the article gives about each is completely unrelated to the information given about the other (the areas where Dutch and Afrikaans are official are mutually exclusive), instead of having different articles about them. Exactly what advantage does having this article confer over having two separate articles? The presence of the additional note that the languages are related? For one thing, that's off-topic (the topic being "where are these languages official", not "what is the linguistic relationship between these languages"). For another, it's already covered in articles that do cover linguistic relationships. There's no reason for this hodgepodge. Largoplazo (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going edit my !votes about above until I can get a better sense of the sources available. It may be better to merge some of the content in this article to the main Afrikaans article and/or Languages of South Africa and add some hatnotes to relevant articles. I would maintain that the Afrikaans-Dutch language would be the best one to have an article on, but I'll strike my !vote and comments above until I look at sources more in depth.. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No rationale for deletion is included in the nomination. What's said could be basis for suggesting a split perhaps, into one article on Afrikaans and one on Dutch. Note if the article was split, it would immediately become appropriate to merge them, because the languages are overlapping / closely related. I think/presume that the nominator is unfamiliar with the languages, and should not be involved in judging how articles like this should be organized. --do ncr am 18:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I gave my rationale and I specifically and prominently covered my opinion about the relevance of the relationship between the two languages, given that the article purports to be not about the languages (related) but about where they're spoken (unrelated), one might reasonably ask that you replace your contribution with a response that's consistent with the facts. En, ja, ik weet heel goed de verhouding tussen de twee talen (ik heb drie jaat in België gewoont), ek kan ook 'n beetjie Afrikaans lees en verstaan, and I've even translated from both languages on Wikipedia. So, clearly, my nomination is not based on a lack of awareness of and appreciation for the relationship between the two languages, but on my opinion of its relevance in this context. Largoplazo (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I was thinking/presuming incorrectly about the language skill of nominator (sorry, and perhaps i could buy you a kopje coffee someday to attone). But, the nomination does not provide argument for deletion. It provides complaint perhaps about the naming of the article (so discuss that at the Talk page and perhaps open a wp:RM request) and it complains about the scope of the article (so suggest a split of the article at its Talk page). There is no issue about General Notability Guidelines being met, and no valid deletion argument at all. In fact this should be Speedy Keep decided. --do ncr am 23:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and rewrite OR delete The article could be tweaked into a valid entry but has been set up as misleading and WP:OR. I have linked it to the valid entries in Dutch and French. Either follow these examples or delete. In the current form, we are better with no such article. gidonb (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the parts that are misleading or WP:OR according to you? I do not see any parts that are misleading and WP:OR. I90Christian (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I90Christian, thanks for the question. I hope to get to that in the next couple of days. It will take me some time to write on this topic. An other way to get there is just comparing with the articles in Dutch and French that are largely valid. gidonb (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete Merge any missing info to Afrikaans#Geographic distribution and Dutch language#Geographic distribution. This article is not a list, nor is is about places where Afrikaans and Dutch are spoken, but is instead about places where Afrikaans and/or Dutch are spoken. I doubt that very much Afrikaans is spoken in Belgium. Although these two languages are similar, the premise behind the title is incorrect. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see much consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Miles Edgeworth^Talk 02:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus since last relist, delsort may bring in new !voters
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 12:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WHATABOUTX. List of territorial entities where English is an official language and List of territorial entities where Portuguese is an official language need to be checked before this AfD is closed. ToThAc (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dabo in Action[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. DrStrauss talk 11:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable film failing WP:NFILM. Celestina007 (talk) 00:10, 01 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references, none found (not even IMDb) and no presumption of notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:28, 2 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. Article needs work, but notable nonetheless. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confederación Empresarial de Sociedades Laborales de España[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. DrStrauss talk 11:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Something like the full page it gets in this book you mean? Apparently in Spain it is considered important news (not front page coverage, but newworthy nevertheless) when someone is elected President or Vicepresident of Confesal. El Economista thinks Confesal is notable [31] (this may be a reprinted press release, not clear to me) The organisations appears in many collaborations, international publications, ... and makes headlines with things like this. Lengthy discussions of the organisation, it's history, ... are mostly lacking, but it's nevertheless notable. Fram (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Fram, it's a notable organisation, just needs improvement.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs work, but the topic is clearly notable. The king of the sun (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jonathunder (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan supremacism[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:NOR. WP:POVFORK of Catalan nationalism, serious WP:NPOV problems. The title of the article itself is hardly used - not WP:COMMONNAME (per a simple google test - 24 hits). Possible WP:COPYVIO issues - as first edit summary states [32] - "Creating article Catalan Supremacism - largely translated from ES Wiki articles" - without stating which articles - which we should note are probably not titled "Catalan supremacism" as there is no interwiki and the use of the plural articles (WP:SYN?). Article has also been tagged as WP:FRINGE by other editors. Icewhiz (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per author's note here - [33] - this was translated from the Spanish wiki [34] (Catalan Race) and [35] (Racism in Spain).Icewhiz (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Scolaire (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete new article, created because, well, folks in old Hispania are a tad agitated just now. So stuff happens to Wikipedia. Like the creation of this article. Note that instead of highlighting Catalan supremacism, article creator linked supremacism; edit note creating this page reads: "largely translated from ES Wiki articles." One reason not ot do this is that political terms do not translate smoothly. This is demonstarted by the assertion in the first sentence, "Catalan supremacism was an ideology shared by all of the main intellectual figures[which?] of the Catalan Renaissance". The Catalan Renaissance was a classic example of Romantic nationalism - not an example of supremacism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork. Despite the proliferation of refs, I doubt that many of them are reliable sources, or that there is significant coverage of Catalan supremicism (or racism) in those sources that are reliable, ∴ fails WP:V and GNG. The fact that the content seems to be acceptable on es.wiki does not make it acceptable here. Scolaire (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mote that it does not exist in this name on the es.wiki ([36] is titled the Catalan Race). Some of the content from es.wiki was translated and repackaged to this.Icewhiz (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that there was an attempt to add it to Catalan independence (as "Catalan Independence and Catalan Racial Theories") on 5 October 2017. --Scolaire (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also in this article - The Catalan supremacism#Influence on 21st century Catalan independence movement seems to be rather pure WP:OR / WP:COATRACK (tying various Catalan politicians to this supposed supremacist movement - possibly a WP:BLP issue) while the rest of the article is mainly translated from the "Catalan Race" (omitting Mexico, minor changes otherwise) es.wiki article.Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Outside political pamphlets, I didn't find any serious source using the concept. I tried also to neutralize a bit the intro (changing "all catalan intellectuals" by "some") and this was systematically undone by the first author of the article, this was also his first article. Another addition about the phenomenon in Castile, (with a serious source) he first deleted and than watered down as he couldn't deny what was printed black on white. Finally the author is confusing some racial theories that indeed existed at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, in many countries of Europe, and that aren't typical nor mainstream in Catalonia. He is presenting them as there is a continuity until today, without any evidence. The quotes are very selective, without counterbalancing them. With the context ignored and without any serious evidence, this article should be deleted.--Flamenc (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:POVFORK — JFG ^talk 14:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep but consider Rename: All of the sources are serious reputable academic sources and reputable media sources. The article seems to be attacked for political reasons related to Catalan nationalism but is not a fork from that article. It is about a very specific stand-alone topic, extensively sourced using academic material and secondary sources and has information which is not currently covered by English language Wikipedia: 19th and 20th century Catalan racial supremacist thought. As an equivalent to Racism in Spain or Falangism, it is not a fork from Catalan nationalism. That the subject matter is distasteful to nationalists of a specific region is not relevant since Wikipedia is not censored on grounds of denialism. This would be an unacceptable amount of information to delete. It would require placing the content elsewhere, and Catalan nationalism is not an appropriate place for it, since it would give undue weight to a very specific historical phenomenon which need not be conflated with a nationalist movement.Sonrisas1 (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is the only "keep" vote here and to me it seems to instead be making the case that, rather than a POVFORK of Catalan nationalism, it is a POVFORK of Racism in Spain... which makes it's case for legitimacy not a bit brighter.--Calthinus (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Calthinus, looking at the article Racism in Spain and its corresponding version in es:wikipedia, it looks to me like a missing section in Racism in Spain in the English version rather than a POV-fork. A summary of this article's content should definitely be included there, as it is in Spanish wiki together with sections on Islamophobia, anti-Romani sentiment etc. Mel.94.207.115.54 (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:POVFORK, lack of primary sources and reliable secondary forces, unsolved issues regarding naming, unsolved issues regarding references, bias, and use of fake images. --Panotxa (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator Nblund^talk 17:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Delay deletion - Focus on consensus building Article seems pretty solid in terms of refs and, looking at editing history, it has been subject to a politically motivated lynch mob since creation. Best wait until situation in Catalonia calms down a bit before taking drastic decisions. Mel. 94.207.115.54 (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no WP:POVFORK. The White supremacism argument provided by Sonrisas1 is quite strong. Is White supremacism a POV-fork of American exceptionalism? No, they are two standalone yet related articles with a degree of overlap. Ariasju (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)— Ariasju (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Strong keep~~ Comment. Although References need reformatting and should be strengthened, are indeed credible and authoritative, and should thus not be dismissed. Ariasju (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on allegations of lack of credible sources: The main secondary sources of this article are the following:

Angel Smith [es] (well known hispanist), The Sources Catalan Nationalisms (2014), Palgrave Macmillan. (this is main source on bulk of article) ^[1] (Main Source
Anti-Semitism in Spain. The image of the Jew, Gonzalo Álvarez Chillida, Marcial Pons Estudios. ^[2]
Montserrat Clua y Faine, (a very prestigious professor of the University of Barcelona), her book "Catalans, inmigrants and xarnegos, "race", "culture" and "mixing" in the nationalist discourse (2011), UAM.^[3]
Hidden stories of Catalan Nationalism, Javier Barraycoa (2011) Barraycoa, Javier (2011). Historias ocultadas del nacionalismo catalán (in Spanish) (1st ed.). Madrid: LibrosLibres. ISBN 978-8492654765.
The Catalan Race by Francisco Caja [es] (2009), Encuentro Caja, Francisco (2009). La raza catalana (in Spanish) (1st ed.). Madrid: Encuentro. ISBN 9788490552483. (another major study)
Spain against Catalonia. History of a Fraud (2014), by Francisco Lainz [es] Laínz, Jesús (2014). España contra Cataluña: Historia de un fraude (in Spanish) (1st ed.). Madrid: Encuentro. ISBN 9788490552483.
Separatism in Catalonia (1907), Francisco Jaume [es], ^[4]

The culture of Catalanism (1995)and Catalan nationalism in its beginnings (1995),seminal work written in Catalan by well known Catalan academic Joan Lluís Marfany (see his article on Catalan wikipedia).

References

^ Smith, Angel (2014). The Origins of Catalan Nationalism, 1770-1898, p.200-203. Palgrave Macmillan UK. ISBN 9781137354495. Retrieved 23 October 2017.
^ Chillida, Gonzalo Alvarez; Benito, Ricardo Izquierdo (2007). El antisemitismo en España. ISBN 9788484274711.
^ Clua i Fainé, Montserrat (2011). "Catalanes, inmigrantes y charnegos: "raza", "cultura" y "mezcla" en el discurso nacionalista catalán". Revista de Antropología Social (in Spanish). 20. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid: 55–75. ISSN 1131-558X. Retrieved 12 December 2015.
^ Jaume, Francisco (1907). "El separatismo en Cataluña: Sociología aplicada".

I could go on, but I have to get back to work. I can only assume, accusations of "fringe theories" or false/absence/non-credible sourcing are made in bad faith in this request for deletion... Media sources include La Vanguardia, El Periódico de Catalunya, Avui, El Mundo etc.Sonrisas1 (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Sourcing in the article is generally poor, and the article text doesn't match the sourcing. The sourcing in particular for the WP:OR section of "Influence on 21st century Catalan independence movement" - does not appear solid - for instance you connect Artur Mas and Oriol Junqueras to supremacism (quite a WP:BLP issue!) - however while the quote itself is reliable, it does not back up this connection.Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz I'm not denying the article has issues. I has LOTS OF THEM. I need help. But the solution is not deleting it. Its helping me fix it. Regarding Junqueras and Mas. I don't connect them to supremacism. The article doesn't claim those statements are supremacist. It says that, according to sources that that their statements are accused of being supremacist by x,y,z. That should be fine, no? But that is a discussion for the article not a request for deletion. Aborting its existence one week into creation after such a massive translation effort is unfair on a good faith new wikipedian, who had big plans for translating a bunch of articles.Sonrisas1 (talk) 07:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article wouldn't have passed Wikipedia:Articles for creation - which you might want to look into if you intend to create similar articles. I nominated this for deletion because I believe the topic (which doesn't seem to exist for any other national group on Wikipedia in this form - at least per my check) is not salvageable - both on my own impression, and based on the impression of multiple other editors on the article talk page (and article tags). While some topics are quite translatable between different language wikis, if you are translating a highly-political article with POV aligned to the language you are translating from - you will often run into NPOV problems. The Spanish (or French, Arab, Hebrew, or just about any other language wiki) NPOV is different from the English NPOV (which leads to the philosophical question of what neutrality is, but...).Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz Understood, that is a valid point. Then the solution I would really beg all of you is to rename the article, totally change the lead and edit some of the body. We could rename it to Catalan Romantic Racism or something of the thought, since an article on Catalan racial nationalism, or ideally Catalan chauvinism, akin to Han chauvinism. I think, given the huge amount of sources (potentially there is much much, more) it should be modified not deleted. I am not a political edit warrior, I would contribute to a section which provides counter-arguments and criticisms of the concept, and there are many credible ones in the Spanish language which could be included. Improving, modifying the article is a better course of action than deleting its entire content. I really believe this. This article can be neutral - I agree it is not neutral enough yet now, but I thought it would become better with progressive editing and expansion by editors with a range of views. I think I just chose the wrong time to create the article since national sentiment is high on both sides. I am even willing to agree to the most aggressive of editors here (Panotxa) of this article to re-formulate the lead in a way that Catalan chauvinism is expressed as a belief or an argumentation rather than an undisputed reality. I hate the idea of so much work going to waste. Sonrisas1 (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention, in Spanish wikipedia this article is called "Catalan race" which I thought was an odd name for wikipedia article (hence I changed it), but it is a long standing stable article and the subject matter is largely the same: (ethnic supremacism in Catalan nationalist discourse).Sonrisas1 (talk) 07:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You said above that The Origins of Catalan Nationalism, 1770-1898, pp.200-203 was the "main source on bulk of article". Pages 200-203 are not visible on Google Books, but what is available talks knowledgeably and at length about Catalan identity without so much as hinting at racism, supremacism or anything else-ism. I can't believe that the author would suddenly change his tone for four pages late in the book. If this is your "main source", then I would conclude that all your other sourcing, or at least your interpretation of it, is equally dubious. Is there a single source that connects the writings of Almirall, the writings of Pompeyo Gener, the Civil War, early 20th century immigration, 1960s immigration and the 21st century independence movement? No, of course not. It's simply original research. As I said above, the fact that this is acceptable on Spanish Wikipedia does not make it acceptable on English Wikipedia. Scolaire (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of confusion in this article as between Catalan identity (you could fill a library about this theme) and the conclusion of supposed superiority, for which there are no real modern sources other than pamphlets. --Flamenc (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz, Flamenc: I am asked to "Assume Good Faith" from all editors, but it is very hurtful when Scolaire, who I see edit wars often on issues related to Catalan independence, suggests I am fabricating or making up the contents of Mr Smith's book in the article's references. But Mr. Scolaire, no, I did not lie when translating this article and checking its sources and no I don't fabricate citations. The book is one of the article's main sources not "my main source", (even though I do happen to own it). It says what is written in the body of the article and early Catalan-nationalist racial supremacist discourse is discussed not just in p199-203 (p.202 IS visible and you can see what he is talking about in p 201) but in a number of other pages, throughout the book (p,149-156) for example or p251-252. If you search for key words in the book on its page in google books: like "berber", "semitic", "race", "african" etc. you will have an idea in which pages it is discussed . I don't know how else to convince you. Is this required or normal? Should I write down the entire text of each page here, in this RfD? Or scan it?

Scolaire I don't know where you are getting at with your second question. Your question is "is there one source which connects the racist writings of (for example) Jordi Pujol and other modern nationalist politicians to the racist thought of the founders of Catalan nationalism? YES. EVIDENTLY. All of the sources referenced in the article do. Even those NOT referenced in the article do! That's why no one deletes them. Here is an example after a 5 second google search that does so.http://intereconomia.com/nacional/racismo-los-teoricos-nacionalismo-catalan-20120330-20120401-0000/feed/ Please use google translate more thoroughly and notice the body is referenced to such detail that no one focuses their attacks on the body of the article, only on the lead or on trying to get it deleted. You personally are either assuming bad faith or trying to get other wikipedians to assume bad faith with such statements. I'm sorry but I find this very insulting. It is wrong behavior even if you do not speak Spanish or Catalan there is no excuse... Sonrisas1 (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, by all means let's bring that to the reliable sources noticeboard and see how reliable they think it is. Scolaire (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then Scolaire read this an entire study in the review of social anthropology of the University of Barcelona: Catalan, immigrants and charnegos: “race”, “cultura” and “mixture” in Catalan Nationalist Rhetoric. It is an important source in the article, it is the answer to your question. It discusses Racism towards immigrant Spaniards in Nationalist discourse from beginning of 20th century to the 21st century. But the question is, have you bothered to read it before trying to get this article deleted? Please use Google translate when required. https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/RASO/article/viewFile/36262/35111

Abstract:

This paper focuses on the manner in which ‘race’ and ‘culture’ are used in nationalist rhetorics, paying special attention to the presence or absence of ideas of biological or cultural ‘mixture’ employed in order to define socio-political identity of offspring of parents who possess different national identities. I will analyze this phenomenon in the ethnographic instance of Catalan nationalism, a kind of ‘civic’ nationalism that defines Catalan identity basically in cultural terms. The paper proposes to contrast this type of nationalist rhetoric with a form of xenophobic attitude that developed in Catalonia in the past century —1960s-1970s— and which served to stigmatize the offspring of ‘mixed’ marriages between Catalans and Spanish immigrants. This instance serves to show that nationalist ideologies tend to adapt their argumentative structure to the prevailing socio-political and conceptual context, shifting from and/or combining culturalist and biologist/essentialist principles of classification. Finally, I want to point out the importance of paying special attention to the contemporary economic crisis in particular, with regard to attitudes and disqualifications of non-European immigrants in Catalonia and their descendants.Sonrisas1 (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Sonrisas1 (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contrasting modern "cultural" nationalism with 60s xenophobia! And where does it discuss Almirall, Gener or Junqueras? This is what I mean about the way you use sources. But this is not the place for this discussion. It should be on the article talk page. We have each argued our side. Let the closer draw his or her own conclusions. Scolaire (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not great with Spanish, but I believe the word "brevemente" means "briefly" - the author is discussing a xenophobia that formed briefly in the 1960s and 70s. That word was in the original, but you left it out of your translation, for some reason. This doesn't support the thrust of the article, it seems to refute it by noting that contemporary Catalan nationalism is a form of civic Nationalism that doesn't really rely on an ethnic identity at all. Nblund^talk 16:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now read the article in Google translate and it categorically does not say what you pretend it says. Scolaire (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, User:Nblund. Look at page 64 of the Barcelona University study, for example. It says: aunque es cierto que en términos generales el discurso nacionalista en Cataluña se ha construido a partir de criterios culturales, no hay que olvidar que hubo un importante debate sobre el “problema de la inmigración” en Cataluña entre 1919 y 1930, que se expresó a través de la pureza racial y los “problemas de la mezcla racial” (Simón Tarrés, 1995)

Translation: "Although it is true that, in general terms, Catalan nationalist discourse has been built on cultural criteria, we must not forget that there was an important debate about the "problem of immigration: in Catalonia between 1919 and 1930, which was expressed by means of racial purity and the problems of "racial admixture"."

She is citing: Josep Vandellós, Catalunya, poble decadent(1935) y La immigració a Cataluña(1935), also mentioned in the article. In any case the argument used by Scolaire is weak. It is like asking for the article White supremacism be deleted lest it shows an individual source which connects all L. Frank Baum with Alfred Rosenberg, Ian Smith, the White Patriot Party, Odinism, Charlottesville, Matthew F. Hale and Donald Trump. On the other hand, on this topic we do have a number of sources/articles which identify a general theme of ethnic supremacism from current politicians harking back to the 19th century: such as this one http://www.libertaddigital.com/espana/politica/2015-07-26/oriol-junqueras-los-catalanes-tienen-mas-proximidad-genetica-con-los-franceses-que-con-los-espanoles-1276553647/ I concede this particular one is an article from a conservative TV channel and can be perfectly and legitimately contested with counter-arguments (in fact, it should - including explaining how Catalonia has become an inclusive society in the 1990s and the "us vs. them" in nationalism now based more on language/culture/politics than race). However sources arguing for a continuity do exist (the one above provided for example between the current Catalan vice-president Oriol Junqueras feeling the need to publicly discuss how "Catalans are genetically closer to the French and the Swiss whereas the Spanish are closer to the Portuguese" and that fact that the history of the Catalan nationalist renaissance is rife with racialist thought based on Catalans being more European and thus superior other Spaniards + xenophobic attitudes to immigrants from southern and central Spain and writings in the 30s on the need to maintain catalan ethnic purity. It is not Original Research. Sonrisas1 (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nblund This article, which is a review of Francisco Caja's book also explains how this academic studies in his work the continuity between Almirall, Gener et al. and Jordi Pujol's ideology (hard to argue against that one considering his book about inferior Andalusians who will destroy Catalonia) and the development of modern independence movement through a chauvinistic/supremacist ideology. Please do google translate. Note Jordi Pujol is the father of Catalan nationalism in the democratic era and was President of Catalonia between the early 1980s and 2011. https://gaceta.es/noticias/francisco-caja-convivencia-civica-catalana-congreso-catalanidad-hispanica-raza-catalana-11072016-2022/Sonrisas1 (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you not consider just writing a biography of Francisco Caja, describing his ~~violent~~ vitriolic anti-Catalan diatribes? You could copy it from this article. --Scolaire (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's the best you can do when you run out of arguments, Scolaire? Make stuff up about a professor of philosophy at the University of Barcelona you hadn't even heard of until this dispute? Unlike you, I do speak Catalan, so lying about a Catalan-university professor to weaken the validity of a source is pretty pointless and makes you look bad. His article in Catalan wikipedia (which is overall pretty biased due to language barriers reducing diversity of views - less than 40% of Catalans can write it properly) doesn't say anything at all about "violent diatribes against Catalonia". I think I have made my point here and you have shown what you are up to on wikipedia. I hope sanity prevails.Sonrisas1 (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sonrisas

, Unlike you, I understand and speak Catalan and don't use bad arguments to denigrate somebody who doesn't share my opinion. Never seen any of this language barriers. You still didn't bring any evidence of you supremacy theory (copypasted from a SCC video & propaganda). Arguments and facts allways are welcome.--Flamenc (talk) 07:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That diatribe is all that this article (and the corresponding one on es.wiki) is hanging on. Your misrepresentation of Angel Smith and Montserrat Clua is just padding. Scolaire (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best this is an unjustified content fork.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment race has been used in so many different not quite congruous ways in the last 250 years just in English, that I am not willing to accept some Wikipedia editors translation of Spanish-language material to say that the "race" being discussed here is at all congruous to the use of the term "race" in English. What we need is in English reliable sources that use this term. Normally in English sources are not needed, but when we are writting an article on an idea, the idea needs to be shown to be expressed under the name of the article title in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a POVFORK and various nationalisms have espoused racialist notions in the past, there is no need to single Catalan nationalism out as the only one with its own page. If the page somehow escapes deletion, the section about "influence on the 21st century movement" (i.e. a WP:SYNTH-y pasting together of whatever quotes someone could find to try to smear a secessionist movement as based on racism) must go. Cheers.--Calthinus (talk) 02:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fmercury1980 (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article suffers a lot from not grasping the point Bernard Lewis made on his book on racism and slavery in the Middle-east. Race as a concept close to nationality existed in the 19th-century. It was rethought on slightly larger terms in the 20th-century. By the 21st-century most people who study the concept from a biological stand point have rejected the very notion of race, and some of the top physical anthropologist worry about the obsession with asking race on the part of medical institutions. I have in the last month filled out forms that listed possible races as Middle Eastern and Chaldean in one case. Those are two seperate races. In another case they just had Middle Eastern but also had Greek. We need a nuanced discussion of this idea, which can easily be provided in the article on Catalan Nationalism. n present discourse people regularly use ethnicity and race interchangeably. Despite US census statement "Hispanics can be of any race", many Americans will say being Hispanic is a race. Some even say ethnicity is a more specific measure than race. Then in my history of China class our professor told us the 50+ ethnicities of China are best thought of as similar to the various races of the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin:

two D! voters: (Flamenc and Panotxa) here are highly active Catalan wiki (99k and 62k) editors with little English wiki activity (271 and 70).
3 K! voter: one K! voter (Ariasju) is a pure SPA (nothing prior to editing this page), 1 K! voter (Fmercury1980) is a long dormant es-wiki account (close to null activity on es-wiki and en-wiki between 2010 and present - recent October 2017 small scale activity in en-wiki and es-wiki). Article creator (Sonrisas1, who !voted as well) is a new account with edits mainly limited to this article and similar Catalan/Spain.Icewhiz (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge It seems that this article lacks a major organizing field or principle - the connection of all these various different components of "Catalan Supremacism" is either based on very few sources, or pure original research. That being the case, rather than having an article dedicated to a concept with no real validity, it'd be better to take anything of value and put it in Catalan Nationalism, as the vast majority of the material in this article describes aspects of the Catalan Nationalist movement. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mainly per the nom. It is a WP:POVFORK and I could not ignore the blatant neutrality violations. Most, if not all, the content is based on original research so merging would not be my first recommendation.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'/Comment: Caja and Spanish media sources invalidate WP:SYNTH argument, which was only valid one. Don't see much validity in other arguments. 79.148.52.71, 21:09, 29 October 2017‎
Delete as original research and a POV fork of "Catalan nationalism." Google books search fails to show that it is a topic of study. Its few finds are use of the term in passing, for example, a cable from a loyalist in the Spanish Civil War says, "I see a tendency toward Catalan supremacism...." The article seems to be an attempt to tie the current secessionist movement in Catalonia to historic fascism. TFD (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: TFD Then I would suggest you vote RENAME, since there is plenty of material on Catalan racism and racial supremacy theories in early Catalan nationalism on Google books. See above.Sonrisas1 (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have an article on Catalan nationalism and this article is a POV fork. Basically you have taken sources about Catalan nationalism and extracted negative content to create a topic for which there is no body of literature in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is not about Catalan nationalism. It is about the history of racism in a particular geographic region, TFD. What makes British, Leeds University Professor Angel Smith's book or Alvarez Chillida's study on anti-semitism in Spain (to take two of many examples) unreliable? The unreliability/lack of sources argument is extremely strange. Maybe if it is repeated over and over again, editors will become convinced it is true and become blind to the body of reliable literature which is on the article itself... Is there a body of literature on Anti-Catalanism? The article is literally unsourced except for newspaper articles. Would you delete that too? Or is that fine? We cannot say that an academic is not reliable because POV-editors dislike a paragraph, page or chapter of one of his books. When we have an entire body of literature on the topic, we can't smear every one of its authors because we dislike a wikipedia article and want it deleted. Sonrisas1 (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Neither book has a section on "Catalan supremacism." You are taking snippets of information from sources on different topics to synthesize a topic for which no body of literature exists, which is synthesis. And what another Wikipedia article does is irrelevant to this discussion. There are lots of articles that fail notability standards. TFD (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's a clear case of WP:POVFORK. Impru20 (talk) 09:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Heavily pruned content into 'Cat. Nationalism' as a 'criticism' or similar section. There is too much OR here and extrapolation, also I am not persuaded that 'supremacism' is the apt title for this content or is a commonname for the phenomenon. Chauvinism and xenophobia are frequently soul mates of nationalism and the content here appears to legitimately make the case that such criticism has been made about the Catalan variant. I would help pruning, but, I suspect Cat and Sp would be needed. Pincrete (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this travesty.FreeCatalonia (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it is right now, I think it belongs into WP:POVFORK territory with plenty of undue extrapolation. The title "Catalan Supremacism" is not valid either, for what is meant to be (as you read the entry) something like "Racial discourse in Catalan nationalism". But there are plenty of sources in the entry to use elsewhere, though. Racism in Spain could be a place to start (although, in order to keep balance that entry should be expanded bigly with more content not related to Catalonia). Using Caja (a perfectly valid source to punctually source factual information and to make inline attributions despite what many Catalan nationalists may tell you) as common thread (which is close to be in a section) screams "problems" because he has fringe views about what Catalan nationalism is as a whole. PS: @Sonrisas1: I cannot do anything but recommend El antisemitismo en España: la imagen del judío, 1812-2002 by Álvarez Chillida in order to source about "racist and antisemitic views" in Spain. IIRC he talks about the racial views in fin de siècle Catalan nationalism, but he cannot be used as it is used right now at the beginning of the last section to make black & white statements (it screams of junk WP:SYNTH).--Asqueladd (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Agree:Asqueladd Moving the bulk of the content (or a condensed version of it) to Racism in Spain is a fair option. Note that was my next project anyways: rewriting that article on basis of Spanish version - which includes many other types of internal racism not just Catalan. I also think that article should be renamed History of racism in Spain. I do understand the POV-fork argument, but the fact is that this information has to be somewhere on Wikipedia. In the event that Catalonia became independent, we would need this as a separate article. I'm taking for granted this article will be deleted but I will get in touch with you at some point, since I don't know how to make attributions in sources (i.e. write the actual citations in Spanish within the reference) and focus on Racism in Spain. As a new Wikipedian, it would be good to have someone who can give me advice on such things, if you don't mind. Sonrisas1 (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Sonrisas1: I am not sure if "moving" the content is the apt word. I hate sounding patronizing but I can offer you my opinion/advice if you ask in my talk page. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This seems to have been created to prove a point, and not out of a motivation to write a neutral and informative article on the subject. The term also doesn't appear to be used often, if at all. —mountainhead / ? 15:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English surnames of Norman origin[edit]

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

I had to read this article three times to decide if this is "encyclopaedic" or more of an essay with political undertone. I think it's the latter.
In a nutshell, the article repeats most of that is already covered in History of England but introduces a WP:POVFORK by referring to William the Conquerer as "bastard son with spurious claim..." and goes on how French language, culture and names entered England. What follows is a badly sourced mini-history of England with some examples of French names written essay style.
The article ends with a call-to-action to other Wikipedians to compile a list of Norman names with explanations and a political statement about how the Norman invasion was the first and EU membership was the second time England was taken over. I can't help but feel that this is some kind of "witch hunt" on people with Norman (i.e. "invader") names.
Overall, I think the article is beyond salvageable as it would need a fundamental rewrite to discuss naming history from a neutral point of view. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR. The listed reference of The Norman people and their existing descendants in the British dominions and the United States of America has no page numbers so we would have to trace through the book just to ensure verifiability. The subject doesn't seem notable. There are several books about English/British surnames but none that address Norman ancestry as a subject save the one listed. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly sourced essay (there is one borderline (from a brief examination) possibly acceptable 1874 source in the article which doesn't seem the best and is listed as the whole book as a reference). Fails NOR. Subject could possibly be notable, the current article requires a dose of WP:TNT.Icewhiz (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Per comment below.Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#ESSAY. This is a personal essay filled with unsourced or poorly sourced assertions. The topic is real, and is as old as post British snobbism - did you think that Jane Austen chose Mr. Darcy (surname) randomly? An article cold be written on this. topic. This is not it. WP:TNT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC) See below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We agree the underlying topic is notable. However, don't our policies call for weak articles on notable topics to be improved, or flagged for improvement -- not deleted. If much of the current article is original research, then why not merely keep the article and trim the part that lapses from OR? Geo Swan (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand if you do not like the style. I have always treated Wikipedia as being able to include the important aspects without stogy mechanisms. In the whole article on the Magna Carta for instance it never says that the absolute most important thing about it is that it made the sovereign subject to the laws. It said what laws he was subject to but never discussed the underlying concept that was foreign to the whole world at that time. So change the style. And yes I think the whole of Wikipedia is getting stodgy and mechanical. For that I go to Britannica. But to say it is not important or a concept in itself that people should be able to look up, that is incorrect. If you look at my discussion page I tried to find a page that discussed this before I started the page. And it is interesting, not droll. If you wanted to know why Bucket is pronounced bouquet, where do you want to send them? It is not political The invasion was almost a thousand years ago. If you have English blood, you are part Norman.Hotspur (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Hotspur[reply]

Keep The current article may lapse from WP:NOR. But what matters is not the current state of the article, but whether the underlying topic is itself notable. I don't think there is any question as to whether it is, because this is the kind of thing Linguists write their Masters and PhD theses about.
Nominator wrote: "I had to read this article three times..."
Warning! This is not how you should decide whether an article merits deletion. Rather you should comply with WP:BEFORE, and make a couple of web searches, so you can independently arrive at an informed conclusion as to whether the article's underlying topic measures up to our inclusion criteria. Please don't ever call for the deletion of an article merely because it is weak, when the underlying topic is notable. Geo Swan (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I like being "warned" with some accusation about not doing WP:BEFORE. I did clearly state in my closing comment that I agree that such topic may warrant being highlighted - just not as essay, with OR and all sort of colour political reflection. Hence WP:TNT. I am baffled by the statement that editors should effectively ignore a full understanding of an article which is being assessed (which sometime requires further reading) and instead come to a view based purely on external factors. I would argue that it is exactly a lack of proper time to review that allowed this colourful, tendentious article to be uncurated and unchanged for half a year. Geo has essentially nuked the article so that only debris is left (thank you for that), the question remains if the stubby remainder still warrants to be here or possibly may be redirected/merged. The article Anglo-Norman language reflects on many elements that may also find their way into an article about names. Additionally, Anglo-Normans contains a rather long list of Norman families, in many cases with their own articles and etymology for the names. This may be a very personal view, but I'm not a big fan of forks until such a point where sufficient material has been collected to aid readability and comprehension of a wider complex of topics._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Jake Brockman, our policies, sadly, are in a constant state of flux. They used to be very clear on this point. Articles on notable topics that had problems that were fixable were to be fixed. We tag them for improvement. We stubbify them, to the point where paragraphs that lapsed from NPOV, NOR, or copyvio, were trimmed. You refer to WP:TNT, one of our many wikidocuments that is an essay, one I had not read, until today. In general policies trump guidelines, and guidelines trump essays. In practice there are a few essays that enjoy such widespread acceptance -- like WP:ATA -- that they might as well be official wikidocuments. But I don't accept that TNT is one of them. I see it as its preamble warns -- an essay with no guarantee it is broadly accepted. Since it contradicts the last version of WP:DEL I studied closely, I put very little stock in its advice.
- You wrote: "I'm not a big fan of forks until such a point where sufficient material has been collected to aid readability and comprehension of a wider complex of topics".
  Ah. You've touched on a sore point for me. A lot of wikipedia contributors think it makes sense to take articles on perfectly adedquate topics, and shoehorn one, into another, simply because they are related.
  No offense, but this is almost always short-sighted and a grave disservice to our readers. Our readers intelligence deserves respect. Our readers freedom to jump from topic to topic, in the way that serves them best, deserves respect.
  You ask whether this topic is a mere subset of Anglo-Norman language. Again, no offense, but let me suggest you are overlooking that these two topics, anglo-norman language and english surnames of Norman origin have DIFFERENT sets of topics they are linked to. In the ideal wikipedia, every notable topic that this article was related to would exist, and there would be a pair of bidirectional links between each related article.
  If I am not mistaken the Normans also conquered and ruled Sicily, for a time. (If I am not mistaken the original root of the Mafia was that it was an underground Sicilian resistance movement opposed to the Norman occupiers.) So this article should contain a link to Sicilian surnames of Norman origin. After England the Normans went on and occupied some or all of Ireland. So this article should link to Irish surnames of Norman origin. The Normans were not the first Viking style people to occupy England. At the time of Alfred the Great Danes occupied half of England, the Danelaw. So English surnames of Danish origin should link to this article, and vice versa. This is the English language wikipedia. There may be few scholars who have written, in English, about Hungarian surnames of Austrian origin, or Dutch names of Spanish origin. My point is that the unexamined assumption in your suggestion is that anyone interested in English surnames of Norman origin has to be just as interested in the Anglo-Norman language, and you seem to be overlooking the possibility that a reader could want to read about these surnames who has zero interest in Anglo-Norman language. If I am interested in surnames whose source was foreign occupiers I sure wouldn't want to plough through an article on each foreign invader's language, in hopes it contained the information I really wanted. Should the article on Anglo-Norman language link to English surnames of Danish origin, or Irish surnames of Norman origin? No, of course it shouldn't.
  In addition, if we took your merge suggestion, we would have less useful watchlists, the "what links here" button would be less useful. When two articles that can stand on their own are merged, this robs people of the option of only putting the topic they are interested on their watchlist. If the article they are really interested in is shoe-horned into another article, merely because they are related, and they remember to add the merge target to their watchlist, their watchlist will give them a lot of time-wasting false-positives, when someone edits the merged article, but adds material about the other topic. Geo Swan (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jake Brockman, this additional information says Norman origin surnames, like Dubarry, Duhamel and Dupuy, are not traced to speakers of Anglo-Norman language, at all. French refugees brought these previously absent Norman surnames to England, centuries after the Norman conquest. I suggest this further erodes the value of merging this article to Anglo-Norman language Geo Swan (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hold the presses -- I replaced the questionable version with a stub, but a properly referenced one. I think everyone agrees that the underlying topic is notable. Those calling for deletion objected to the previous version lapsing from WP:NOR. I think their concerns are now moot.
I recommend keeping the article, and I would encourage the author of the version that lapsed from OR to discuss what kind of references, and changes in style, others think would be necessary if he or she were to re-incorporate some of their original contribution back into the article, before actually re-incorporating anything. Geo Swan (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per functional stub following HEY by Geo Swan.Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i was interested to learn that Robert the Bruce's family name was originally de Bruis, from Normandy. Such history is notable and should be kept per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete as having no useful content. If it was a list of surnames, which implies that the ancestor came over with William I, it might have been worth having; but it is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Peterkingiron Is there any chance you could return her, and explain yourself in more detail?
- In particular, you write the aricle has "no useful content".. Well that is not a criteria for deletion. It is not up to you and I, to us wikipedia contributors, to use our personal judgement, as to whether topics are notable. Rather we are supposed to rely on whether the authors of reliable sources wrote about the topic.
  If RS write about a topic you or I think is pointless, our choices are: (1) grit our teeth, and work on the article, neutrally using the references we personally disagree with; or (2) ignore that topic, and reserve our personal efforts for other articles.
- You write: "If it was a list of surnames, which implies that the ancestor came over with William I, it might have been worth having..." Excuse me, but this sounds like a tacit acknowledgement that you agree that the topic of English surnames with Norman origin is, in fact, a notable topic. Our deletion policies seem pretty clear on this. When a contributor thinks a topic is notable, but they think the current state of the article is weak, they are not supposed to argue for its deletion, they are supposed to either improve it themselves, or call for its improvement on the talk page, or through tags.
- With regard to your assertion the article should list the surnames of those Norman invaders who came with William the Conqueror... No offense, but you did read the article, before you called for its deletion, didn't you? In 1066 no one used surnames!
  The first documented use of a surname was recorded almost 80 years later. That is right in the article.
  This means no occupier who accompanied "William the Conqueror" brought a surname with him in 1066, because none of them had a surname. Norman French was the language used in the English court for over one hundred years, and presumably used by Norman occupiers. Prior to the adoption of surnames, in the twelfth century, no one in England, not even Kings and nobles, used surnames.
  Check House of Normandy -- the dynasty "William the Conqueror" came from. Known of the individuals in his family had a surname.
  The general adoption of surnames, in England and France, occurred in the twelfth century. That is why later French refugees from Normandy brought previously unknown Norman surnames to England, when they arrived in the fifteenth century. Norman people in England adopted one set of Norman-origin surnames, and Norman people in France adopted a different set of Norman-origin surnames.
- If you still think the article should be deleted... if you think you have a policy compliant justification, then please return here and try to explain that justification more fully.
- If you don't return here to offer a clear policy compliant justification I am going to recommend the closing administrator discount your opinion. Geo Swan (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An immense number of source are available for this. A proper llist can and should be added--it would in my opinion not be limited to those who came over with the Coquerer, but anyfamily name from the period --many came over somewhat later than that. DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, changing iVote, as I said above, the topic is real and notable, and the article has now been upgraded to a valid stub.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Jiten^talk_contribs 15:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nuku'alofa Tonga Temple[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Available sources are either primary ones from the Deseret News, which is owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (more info.), or only providing passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:HEY added coverage from the Salt Lake Tribune and Honolulu Star-Bulletin. also, there's a longish discussion of the relationship of the Kings of Tonga and this newish Mormon temple in a 1988 University of California, Berkeley doctoral dissertation, Inventing Mormon identity in Tonga, by Tamar G. Gordon, apparently the Kings attend some important services, had some role in making the land available,,, stuff Kings do with large religious groups; LDS is big in Tonga. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Independent 2ndry sources have been added. Clearly notable from a Tongan perspective. Tonga 2, North America 0. -- Gpc62 (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears notable, at least from current (improved) version of article. --do ncr am 00:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Trent Reznor. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Null Corporation[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH; source searches are only providing passing mentions. Could be redirected to Trent Reznor. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Everything I search for seems to be in a passing mention in a Reznor interview. Redirecting would make the most sense (against deletion) as it's a possible search term. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trent Reznor -- an in-house lable for Reznor and NIN; no outside artists. One article is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MapleCore Ltd.. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pheromone Recordings[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Could be redirected to MapleCore Ltd. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MapleCore. Full disclosure, I'm the original creator here, but I did so at a very different time in the history of Wikipedia's notability and sourcing standards. At the time, all a record label had to do to be considered notable per WP:NMUSIC was to have notable artists on it — and WP:CORPDEPTH wasn't a thing yet either, but rather it was enough to be able to reference it to RS coverage of the artists which verified that those artists were on it. But we're stricter now about the distinction between coverage which mentions the topic and coverage which is actually about the topic, and this isn't salvageable to the latter sort of coverage. But even without the depth of coverage needed to qualify for a standalone article, it is verifiable enough to merit mention in Wikipedia somewhere — and its parent corporation's article is better-sourced as the subject of more coverage about it than this division is. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 David Byrne. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Todo Mundo[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, as per source searches. Could be redirected to David Byrne. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete when we can redirect? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per WP:HOAX and WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Gorbanson[edit]

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

Hoax, utterly unverifiable, even in the sources given[37]. Exists since February 2017... Fram (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V. Name is also highly unlikely for a 16th century Englishmen, and is actually quite unpopular - less than 30 google hits - and you'd expect quite a bit more if this name were carved on the crow's nest of several of his/her majesty's ships......Fails WP:SOLDIER of course. A mast height of just 33ft sounds a bit small for the top of the mast for the ship he fell from. Becoming "lead ship builder" at the age of 29 after recovering from his injury and serving a-ship seems not too plausible.Icewhiz (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another inconsistency The HMS Vanguard was rebuilt in the Woolrich Dockyard still exists today and has the engraving on its crows nest. However, the ship is privately owned as an antique. - HMS Vanguard (S28) is a submarine and doesn't have a crow's nest. All previous Vanguards seem to have been broken up or sunk. So this potentially verifiable piece of information (go see the engraving/graffiti) fails due to the ship not existing.Icewhiz (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:V. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even in the unlikely event that the information here was verifiable, it would still not add up to the individual in question being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just documenting another failed attempt to satisfy WP:V. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. And WP:TROUT article creator for creating a hoax that is neithe rfunny nor plausible.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:V. Very likely a hoax. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is the supposedly well-known phrase "Gorbanson Nest" not found through a Google search apart from this article, but the article creator has no other edits apart from this one - a classic red flag for suspected hoaxes. Calamondin12 (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --a NN common sailor. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The good doctor (phrase)[edit]

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

bog-standard dicdef, no sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOR. The one source provided simply quotes Shakespeare; there's no analysis of the phrase. This isn't a subject for an encyclopedic article. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Good Doctor. A Shakespearean allusion from a major play like MacBeth is beyond the usual popular culture trivia which we normally delete. This will make an appropropriate introduction to what is otherwise a dab page. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete basically, NOTDICTIONARY. Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wiktionary for the time being—without prejudice to revival of the page as a separate encyclopedic article later, if suitable secondary sources can be found. I've created the Wiktionary page the good doctor that would be the target of the soft redirect. I believe the honorific expression the good doctor meets Wiktionary's idiomaticity criterion for inclusion.

The real obstacle to immediate expansion of the Wikipedia page into something encyclopedic is not WP:DICDEF, or WP:NOT, or even an absolute lack of sources—it's WP:NOR, and more specifically, the section WP:SYNTH. There are numerous primary sources out there with implications for this honorific's cultural significance, but it would take a lot of synthetic original research to put them together in a way that would meet the standards of WP:WORDISSUBJECT within WP:DICDEF. I haven't seen any secondary sources yet that do this, although some might have been lurking unnoticed in the sheer volume of the Google search results.

Should suitable sources be found later, soft redirection using the template {{Wiktionary redirect}} will place fewer obstacles in the way of revival of the page than would straightforward deletion, or even merging. The section WP:POINTWIKT within the policy WP:DICDEF recommends this procedure for Wikipedia articles "which could potentially be proper articles but are dictionary-like stubs at the moment"—a precise description of what we face here.

—Syrenka V (talk) 10:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Wiktionary: since the Macbeth quotation only includes the form of address "good doctor", which by Wiktionary's standards is distinct from "the good doctor", it is ineligible for citation in the Wiktionary article the good doctor. So I've created a separate Wiktionary article specifically for the form of address good doctor, and cited the Macbeth quotation there; at this point, no information will be lost by a soft redirect. Another good thing about a soft redirect, as opposed to a merge or a hard redirect, is that it can be given more than one target; the template {{double soft redirect}} makes that easy. So the soft redirect can lead to both Wiktionary pages. (There is of course only one encyclopedic concept here, so if secondary sources can be found later, the soft redirect can still be replaced by a single Wikipedia article.)

—Syrenka V (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 06:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete everything that needs to be said is said at The Good Doctor, which reads: The good doctor (phrase), a cliché referring to any physician.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not even a soft redirect to Wiktionary? Just delete? Really? Even the dictionary entries I've written for Wiktionary say more, and need to say more, than the above one-sentence summary—which isn't even correct, although it is taken from the current dab and main articles here on Wikipedia. The one person most closely associated with the phrase "the good doctor" is Samuel Johnson, who was not a physician. —Syrenka V (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Good Doctor is a perfectly fine disambiguation page, but The good doctor (phrase) is not a plausible search term so there's no need for a redirect. Possibly add a Wiktionary link to The Good Doctor. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:30, 2 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 Croatia Records. Per consensus (non-admin closure) Nightfury 08:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CRMP[edit]

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

Per source searches, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Could be redirected to Croatia Records. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Croatia Records. I see no case for standalone notability. GregorB (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, non-notable subsidiary of Croatia Records. Daß Wölf 03:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing the afd request. Thanks, 96.127.242.251, for adding the refs. I should have checked further. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Gordon (painter)[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence for notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep from what I was able to find, he was a prominent early contemporary portaitist in NY and LA. His portrait of Eleanor Roosevelt, for example, is in the National Portrait Gallery in Washington. He apparently also painted Will Rogers, Willa Cather President Calvin Coolidge and Winston Churchill, among others. That sounds notable enough for me. Sources to prove these claims have been added to the article.96.127.242.251 (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added a dozen good refs in total. I also found his work in two permanent collections. WP:ARTIST is clearly satisfied.96.127.242.251 (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Carey[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO John from Idegon (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be a holdover from the earlier days of WP when notability wasn't terribly formalized. Chock-full of OR ("has an obsession with owls", etc), no passable RS, broken links, and no convincing and supported claim of notability. Quick search turns up web stuff, but no RS. Agricola44 (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - best source I could find was this, where she is namechecked amongst many other bikers. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirect doesn't seem to be appropriate. ansh 666 20:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Chetanananda[edit]

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

The page was CSD'd unsuccessfully a while ago in 2009. Besides the fact the page would need a whole lot of cleaning, the problem is notability. I would assume the Vedanta Society of St. Louis, USA, is not such a large organization that WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES would apply. I found no independent sources for ""Swami Chetanananda" Ramakrishna, though (as hinted by the opening sentence in the current article) this other guy tends to clutter the search results. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 19:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vedanta Society Not seeing enough to establish notability. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have now provided external links to two Missouri newspaper article mentions of Swami Chetanananda. Please consider unmarking this page from the deletion list. Thanks! @srinidhim2004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.109.29 (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Kansas City Star source is a conference announcement, not really "in-depth coverage" as required per WP:GNG. The Saint Louis Post Dispatch source is not covering the person with sufficient detail either, but it could be a source for a Vedanta Society of Saint Louis article. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete two local notices only. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 04:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (nom) redirecting right now would violate WP:SURPRISE, and I see little sense in adding a sentence "the Vedanta society of St. Louis is headed by (this guy)" to the Vedanta Society article. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 03:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG clearly lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bangladesh–Portugal relations and Bangladesh–Bhutan relations, respectively. bd2412 T 03:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Bangladeshi Ambassador to Portugal[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. just a list of non notable ambassadors. also nominating:

Bangladeshi Ambassador to Bhutan LibStar (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bhutan-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

vote deferred for now - This is a very important and profound AFD. There are many articles in the mold of "Country X Ambassador to Country Y". While people may write "other crap exists", we should try to be uniform, not arbitrary, and delete some but not others. Another issue is that there may be few or no reliable sources about the list of ambassadors to a certain country. If there are none, then we are almost doing original research by cherry picking information from various sources to make up an article. This is different from "List of US Presidents" where there are reliable sources with lists. There is probably no "List of US Presidents who hated spinach" even though you might be able to find an article that President X hated spinach and another article that mentions President Y doesn't like spinach. AGrandeFan (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Cherry picking information from various sources to make up an article" is called research and is how you are supposed to write an article. WP:Synthesis is about combining facts to come to a new conclusion not in the original source material. If you believed a person was born on Mars instead of Earth, you would pick various statements to support your new conclusion. --RAN (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Bangladesh and India are the only countries in the world to have ambassadors stationed in Bhutan.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- keep Bangladeshi Ambassador to Bhutan as the article is sourced and notable because Bangladesh and India are the only countries to have resident ambassadors in Bhutan and the close ties between Bangladesh and Bhutan. Two of the ambassadors have their own pages and a red link does not mean the individual is not notable it just means an article has not been created. Neutral on the Bangladeshi Ambassador to Portugal article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that two articles are nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Not enough trusted sources to ensure article notability at the moment. But relations between the two countries are notably important in South Asia, and thus should be listed but improvement on sourcing is adviced. Tart (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough trusted sources to ensure article notability at the moment. is a reason for deletion. the notability of relations is covered in another article. LibStar (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

improvement on sourcing please demonstrate where these sources are. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 03:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all The optimal solution here is to keep this content at Foreign relations of Bangladesh until such point that there's so much well-sourced content that it's ready to be spun-out. A standalone article should not exist until it must. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Chris troutman: Sorry, I'm confused. If the optimal solution would be to keep the content at Foreign relations of Bangladesh (and I'm leaning more or less towards agreement with you on that), why is your recommendation delete rather than merge? --Worldbruce (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Worldbruce: I've been screwed in the past where I !voted merge, some !voted delete, but the largest single group !voted keep. The closer determined keep was consensus because they didn't see merge and delete as essentially the same conclusion (that a standalone article should not exist). There are already misguided keep !votes present here, so pushing for deletion is a clearer position than merge. Also, if the split was between keep and merge, the closer could determine keep and ask for a merge discussion, which also wastes time. Finally, you don't need permission to copy material from here and paste it somewhere else so long as you properly attribute. I only !vote merge if the consensus is clearly trending for merge because otherwise it's too risky as a matter of game theory. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign relations of Bangladesh per Worldbruce. I would note to closing admin that, game theory aside, Chris troutman's vote could be counted as an additional merge. Ifnord (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bangladesh–Portugal relations may be a better merge/redirect target than Foreign relations of Bangladesh for Bangladeshi Ambassador to Portugal, but either would be fine. Keeping a stand-alone page for this is not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the main article to Bangladesh–Portugal relations. It's clearly part of that topic and the list is not large enough to make the article bloated. I'm less sure about the other one given the geographic proximity of the countries. Hut 8.5 22:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bangladesh–Portugal relations#Official representatives. Not enough meat to justify its own article, but fits in nicely with B-P relations. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both and Merge to Bangladesh-Portugal/Bhutan relations per Power and Troutman. Both are good examples of WP:LISTCRUFT, and serve no encyclopedic purpose separated from their main articles. Bangladeshi Ambassador to Portugal in particular falls under the Creation Guide portion of WP:CSC. If either of these lists can be expanded to the point that they dominate the article, then it may be time to spin them off, but in their current state they are not nearly large or well sourced enough to merit their own article. Ham tech person 00:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Symbolic computation per below. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Computational algebra[edit]

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

A disambiguation page with only one disambiguating line - there are two links on the page, but they are on the same line, with no link for the other purportedly ambiguous topic. Delete and redirect to Symbolic computation, perhaps with a hidden-text note advising future editors not to make these kinds of pages. bd2412 T 03:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly redirect to Symbolic computation. Why go through Afd for a page that doesn't even qualify for TWODABS? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 10:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for above reasons. I'll do that. D.Lazard (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's also Computer algebra system as a possible target --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Symbolic computation" is another name for "Computer algebra". As most (maybe all) computer algebra systems do not use the phrase "computational algebra", there is no reason to redirect to Computer algebra system. On the other hand, it may be readers who do not make a difference between "computational algebra" and "computer algebra". Thus redirecting there is natural. D.Lazard (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I just happened to notice so I thought I'd mention. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. after two relisted (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olympia 66[edit]

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

Non-notable building. Likely created as paid editing to promote the architect: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_89#Aedas. Note this deletion rationle is a copy of what Smartse wrote in 2015 proposed deletion, and the article hasn't been improved since. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are more sources available than in 2015: SCMP (the best), archdaily and more mentions in the SCMP: [38] [39]. I'm not convinced that those are enough to meet GNG though. I think it may be better to merge and redirect to the developer/owner company (Hang Lung Properties) which doesn't make any mention of the mall. I seem to remember us doing something similar with articles about American malls. SmartSE (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We don't know the motivation for the article creation, but in its current form it's quite innocuous. It has received substantial coverage from reliable sources.[40][41] And it's the location of the world's largest Apple Store.[42] These are just English sources. It would be willful ignorance to believe there isn't much more coverage in Chinese. --Oakshade (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It matters not that we don't have articles on Olympia 1 through 65 (why is this?) but 66 appears notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"66" is a lucky number in Chinese. Hang Lung Properties's other projects in mainland China are Plaza 66 and Grand Gateway 66. Timmyshin (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject of the article is a non-notable shopping centre. Even the references providing by Oakshade fail to establish notability. «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - The above user is now stalking me and showing up at AfD's I've participated in to !vote against me and even reverted improvements/adding source to an article in AfD I made. [43]--Oakshade (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction - Removing a notability tag without discussion is not an improvement, it's vandalism and runs counter to the principles of consensus. The fact that you added a mediocre source whilst removing the tag is an unfortunate coincidence, but doesn't offset the undesirable behavior you exhibited. «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anyone is free to look at the diff provided to decide if the above user removed an added source (a solid historical source) disrupting a WP:HEY effort[44], not to mention following me around just to !vote against me[45][46].--Oakshade (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you removed the dated notability tag with the aim of changing people's votes? «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is the AfD for the article Olympia 66. If you'd like to discuss the details of the editing of the article Fair Oaks Avenue (Pasadena, California) and the alleged effects it has on editors, you need to have that discussion on its talk page or the AfD that is currently occurring there. --Oakshade (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Nightfury 08:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bitag[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of OccultaCogitat, here is their statement from WT:AFD:

“

Requesting to complete the AFD nomination for the "Bitag" page found within the Wikipedia. A lot of info is questionable and there are only a few references pertaining to the TV show. Most references and external links pose little significance to the entirety of the article itself. Personnel found in the infobox is no longer associated with my colleague who happens to run the TV show.

As much as I want to edit its contents, I lack the proper references to do so.

Kind regards, OccultaCogitat (talk) 06:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

”

I have no opinion about the subject. So Why 06:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. So Why 07:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. So Why 07:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment have removed some unreferenced sections, could you perhaps remove more unreferenced material rather than delete? Atlantic306 (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per WP:TVSERIES. Bitag apparently airs on People's Television Network, which is the official national network. The investigative series Bitag regularly gets covered in popular media,[47][48][49][50][51]... There was perhaps no need to prompt this into an Afd; the newbie editor could have been guided on WP:TVSERIES. Lourdes 03:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though I was just brought into this AfD nomination by familiarity with the topic of the article, I agree with above. If you can add any usable RS or update the article, why don't you do it yourself. The TV show as a public service has played a role in resolving corrupt practices and crime as a media between the people and law enforcement and the courts, and regular media coverage is enough to keep this here. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 04:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Nightfury 08:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steam Powered Giraffe[edit]

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

Band fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. The majority of the sources are affiliated to the subject and those that aren't do not prove notability. The article reads like a fan site. Domdeparis (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article could probably be better sourced (and I can do some independent research on that when I get some time; I've had a recent death in the family) and rewritten, but they pass WP:NBAND, as they have definitely "become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style". They are currently one of the most well-known and popular bands in the Steampunk subculture. If memory serves, they have also won several regional music competitions; I'll do some research on that as well. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources need to be added to show this. As it is the article doesn't prove this. And sorry to hear about your loss. Domdeparis (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you will make the effort. I remember a few weeks ago there was an article deleted for a stand alone member of this band, and at the time I questioned the validity of this parent article, but acknowledged I know next to nothing about the steampunk subculture. Since then I've done a little bit of self-educating. This band indeed likely seems they are important enough to the genre to merit an article, but--as the nomination states--it is coming up short the way it is currently written and sourced. I agree time and effort need to be put in to bring it up to muster, so I'll refrain from i-voting until then. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, substantial biography on Allmusic and a couple other notable sources in the article, though the fancruft does need trimming. They did appear to chart on Top Independent Albums, but Billboard is giving me a 503 error right now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong but Allmusic biographies are mostly user generated content and not a biography or a review written by staff but from information submitted for inclusion. As it says on Allmusic it is a comprehensive database and from what I gather it has an inclusive policy and does not select biographies on notability criteria. I would be more interested to know which sources from the article you consider demonstrate notability. Domdeparis (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic is a mixed bag and tough to gauge notability from a profile there alone. At one time it was, in fact, a source with proper editorial oversight and a profile there was a pretty good indicator of what could translate into wikipedia notability. The company was purchased 8 years ago by Rovi (now owned by TiVo) which made its goal to cross-pollinate All Music's content with their database. The point is to provide artist information on any artist that has a product for sale in their database. And, yes, their website contains instructions for artists and publicists to submit content to help create these profiles. Bottom line: the merits of AllMusic profiles need to be assessed on a case by case basis; it is possible for an artist to have an entry there while at the same time failing to meet any other kind of WP:MUSIC standard. I will add that the profile for this particular artist seems to reads like something written with considerable help from submitted, promotional materials rather than an independently researched entry. Take that for what it's worth. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They still do seem to have made a Billboard chart, which does fit into one more criterion of WP:BAND. (Again, Billboard's website is being a butt right now and I can't pull much up.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am very much mistaken the independent albums chart does not appear here Wikipedia:Record_charts and so is not applicable for WP:NBAND but I may have misread the criteria. Domdeparis (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Far too many unreliable sources, however (Facebook, Blogspot, band's own website/Tumblr, and so on). sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 05:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kris Kross. .. and redirect per WP:ATD: Noting that that was one !vote in favor of deletion, while all others- including both a keep and the nominator themselves also acknowledge the possibility of merging and redirecting. ~~Which, incidentally, doesn't need an AfD in the first place!~~ -striking per User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi#AfD of Chris "Mac Daddy" Smith; AfD was, after all, the correct venue for requesting community input to a disputed redirect. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 08:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris "Daddy Mac" Smith[edit]

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

Subject was in a notable band 25 years ago. But as an individual outside of that band, he fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:CREATIVE. The only vaguely reliable source I can find is the one in the UK tabloid newspaper The Sun which is already referenced in the article – even this only mentions his post-Kris Kross life in passing, and any reference to his One Life Entertainment and Urbane Muse companies could easily be included in a single line in the Kris Kross article. All other references found online are primary sources, including the two images used in the article, which are taken from the Urbane Muse website. Article creator is a WP:SPA who has only edited this article and the Kris Kross article, and has already had a previous version of this article, Chris smith of kris kross, deleted from Wikipedia. Suggest this article be redirected to Kris Kross. Richard3120 (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 11:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I suspect that the subject should be notable, but the article doesn't reflect that. I ran the "find sources", but that didn't help (with the quotes in the name). I did find some tabloid hits (TMZ and The Sun) near the top, but further down: https://hiphopdx.com/news/id.23788/title.dj-nabs-believes-chris-daddy-mac-smith-will-not-react-publicly-to-death-of-chris-mac-daddy-kelly http://www.sfchronicle.com/music/article/Kris-Kross-and-Jermaine-Dupri-10872739.php http://buzz.blog.ajc.com/2017/03/23/jermaine-dupri-concert-launch-event-showcases-social-medias-power/ and a few others. The article needs to be improved (and the promotional cruft removed), but I would think a brief biography on the subject is merited. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- But I wouldn't complain if it were merged to the duo's article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to me that all three of those references are related to Kris Kross, rather than anything Chris Smith has done outside the group, except as very brief passing mentions ("works as an artist"). Richard3120 (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable indepdently of the musicial group he was a part of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to Kriss Kross per WP:ATD-R. Entirely useful redirect as an autocomplete term in the search box. I too am surprised that there aren't extant sources to support an article but I guess that's the problem with having your fifteen minutes of fame before the internet age. A Train^talk 21:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tagoo[edit]

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

Apart from this, there's not much that suggests this passes WP:NWEB. DrStrauss talk 12:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance. I'm not sure if it ever existed; searches return nothing while the web links provided are dead. Speedy delete perhaps? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Well it did exist, per Ars Technica and Wired, both linked to in the ELs. But it does look like it was a blip on the radar that got passing attention because of the larger public debate about piracy. Seems it was too soon when the article was created, and it never got soon enough, even almost ten years later. GMG ^talk 15:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Green Pak News[edit]

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

Local newspaper with no notability i.e. newbie type. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 07:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 08:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 08:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough evidence of notability. Lacks reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yogyakarta Principles in Action[edit]

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

No references WP:V verifies the general notability WP:GNG of this topic. Thus this topic may be unsuitable for a standalone article on English Wikipedia. AadaamS (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Despite there are few reference of other international organisations that refer the "Yogykarta Principles in Action", I believe that the multilingual translations of full text of the Yogyakarta Principles, which are not official language of United Nation, have notability. In addition to an examples of human rights defending. Therefore I believe that this topic is suitable for condition and standard of English Wikipedia. Also the name of this article may be changed into "Activist Guide to the Yogyakarta Principles" if more citations from relating human rights organisations could be find. I hope more kind, tolerant and productive help for me on the topics--LilyKitty (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LilyKitty (talk · contribs) The article cannot be changed into an activist guide as that would be a violation of Wikipedia guideline WP:NOTMANUAL. Activism is better suited for other sites such as Wikia. AadaamS (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AadaamS (talk · contribs) I understand the guideline of Wikipedia, and will not ask to change the name of the article. Just the article needs more references by international human rights organisations.--LilyKitty (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LilyKitty (talk · contribs) while writing by human rights organisations may be used as sources for content in the article, the notability of a subject can only be WP:V verified by WP:RS reliable sources. One requisite for a source to be RS is that it is secondary - an affiliated chartiy championing the same cause may not qualify as secondary if its part of the cause. If you have WP:RS to verify the notability, please add them to the article as you seem knowledgeable about this subject and is the best qualified to find the required sources. 22:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This article fails to seriously differentiate itself from the Yogyakarta Principles page and discusses primarily the guide for activists of the principles. Furthermore, it only has one truly secondary source. The rest are YP primary sources. Nuke (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Nightfury 08:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Huppmann[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:NBIO nor WP:NMUSICBIO. Awards don't seem to be notable, and they don't mention how she placed (except for the last one) suggesting she didn't place highly in them (finalist). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks notable to me, see this. I have no more time right now, or would check individual competitions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is some of her outstanding prizes:

First Prize at the Saratov College Competition (2001, Russia)
First Prize at the XXI Century Competition in Kiev (2005, Ukraine)
First Prize at the Dichler Competition of the Vienna Music Seminar (2009, Austria)
The Blüthner Special Prize at the Erika Chary Competition of the Vienna Conservatory – Private University (2009, Austria)
Third Prize - Osaka International Piano Competition (no First Prize was given) (2009, Japan)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sina.khorasani (talk • contribs) 12:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC) 1st Place in the International Piano Competition “14th Grand Prix International, Jeunes Talents’” (2012, France)[reply]

http://www.anastasiahuppmann.com/PDF/en.pdf
https://www.ervik-eu.org/unsere-junge-musikpreistr%C3%A4ger-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B8-%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%8B%D0%B5-%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B/

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Recent edits have, for me, removed the doubts expressed in the nomination. Thincat (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dane Cobain[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. He seems to be a fairly active writer but you don't get notability just for being a published writer, you have to be discussed in multiple independent reliable sources and I can't find any evidence of that. The references in the article don't amount to much and are on the whole not independent of him. Neiltonks (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neiltonks, hope you're doing well. I wanted to request your views on sources like: The Indpendent, Metro, International Business Times, BBC, The Independent again, The Telegraph (the last one being just an interview). Warmly. Lourdes 14:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lourdes These are all articles which he's contributed to in some way (largely discussing his struggles with depression) but they don't discuss his work as a writer/poet/musician in any depth. I still don't believe he meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG yet, but of course others here may have a different view (which is fine!) Neiltonks (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 04:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, has anyone been able to find any reviews of his works from reliable sources? for ex. trawling thru the first 10 pages of a gsearch for his first novella under "no rest for the wicked by Dane Cobain reviews" brought up nothing useful, btw, a WorldCat search for his works in libraries also brought up nothing (clicking on the 2 works listed brings up nil libraries), so unless something comes up, this looks like a delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None, although I searched every title. Searching "No Rest for the Wicked" + Cobain produced nothing on Dane Cobain's book, I did get a few hits on stuff related to Kurt Cobain. Searching gNews on each of the the titles, sometimes with keyword "Cobain," produced absolutely nothing. The books do appear on Amazon.com. Of the first 3 books listed on the page, two are CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, self-published. No Rest for the Wicked is published by Dragon Moon Press. This press's website Create Amazing tales fo rth e Dragon; Become One of Our Dragons!, inviting would be authors to format and submit competed manuscripts, makes me suspicious that our page on this press is a little too credulous, it may be some sort of self-publish or pay-to-publish scam or scheme. I gave up without checking who published the last three books listed on the page, although I searched every title for reviews or coverage of any sort in gNews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Went back to check the other 3 books, Former.ly: The Rise and Fall of a Social Network, Come On Up to the House, and Social Paranoia: How Consumers and Brands Can Stay Safe in a Connected World were all published by CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, the self-publishing program operated by Amazin.com.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has a unique name, and a gNews search gets some hits: Virtual valets, or how to look good online, a BBC article that has this to say about him: "Dane Cobain is a social media specialist at marketing agency FST Group. He runs the social media activities of up to half a dozen clients at a time... 'Individuals are still brands,' he said.... Mr Cobain's agency offers a range of services, from initial strategic advice to taking over the entire feed. The cost depends on how much support is required, he explained, but the results are often tangible." Looking into my WP:CRYSTAL, I see that the "results" he produces for clients might include a Wikipedia page. Be that as it may, the page is persuasive looking, until you start to look at sources. I checked the first one, and removed it, it was an article by him, not an article about him, and the only bio info in it was his author byline. The mainstream media sources in the article that I checked are either written by him, or quote him briefly in his capacity as a social media professional, sometimes as an individual available and willing to talk about personal subjects like having depression or the difficulties of a small-town-kid moving to the big city. These are essentially man-in-the street interviews and do not support notability. I don't see any reviews of his books, anything to indicate that his writing is notable, any profiles of him, or anything to indicate that his career as a social media professional is a notable one. I admit that I gave up searching after a short time, because I was finding so little.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Often there is confusion about notability and writers. Notability is when people write about the author or their works, not about how much the author writes.Ifnord (talk) 15:35, 2 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. Per consensus (non-admin closure) Nightfury 08:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isidra Vega[edit]

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

BLP has been notability-tagged for more than a year and the only reference is a YouTube link. Roles are a little spotty and quick searching turned-up no obvious RS. Asking for community to weigh-in. Agricola44 (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's had starring roles in several notable films. I was able to source her movies and find, albeit, small reviews of her acting in two different newspapers. I've added the sources to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw several of these, but hesitate to call them RS because she is only mentioned incidentally as part of the cast or trivially, e.g. "Latina girlfriend (Isidra Vega)". Refs 1, 4, 9, and 10 are like this. The others I cannot see. Agricola44 (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Young Turks. The arguments to keep are mostly non-policy based. For example, he's well known isn't a valid argument. Nor is the fact the this survived a previous AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Iadarola[edit]

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

To begin with this article is almsot completely sourced to links to the organization he works for. A search of general sources revealed maybe one article about him, although more about the show that he runs than him as an individual, and a few interviews with him, but not enough to be multiple, reliable sourced 3rd party substantial references about him. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC. Just nowhere near enough coverage in reliable secondary sources. Trivial mentions are about it. AusLondonder (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It certainly needs improving, but he's well known. I see passed a deletion process in 2016 - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Iadarola. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ He posts on a lot of social media, but my searches show WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to be lacking. The claim of notability, "an American talk show host, YouTube personality, and political pundit, and serves as the main political fill-in host for online news show The Young Turks" is unsupported by sources. The Young Turks is a minor/niche youtube webcast, and he is not one of its leading personalities. The previous AfD attracted a single iVoter, who cited a lot of web sites like Burnt Orange Report, and Kickass News. I'm not even sure that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON because he's been self-promoting as a political pundit since 2012, according to the page; the last 5 years has been a Golden Age for the production of young political pundits, but this self-styled "pundit" appears not to have caught on.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's discussed in depth in some pieces, [52] and is repeatedly named as a co-host of TYT in RS and quoted as such. [53] At the very least, it should be redirected to TYT. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first source you mention is an article in The Daily Dot about the YouTube program he co-hosts switching form "TYT University to ThinkTank." It contains nothing to source a bio. The second source quotes him. Being quoted does not support notability for a person. We need profiles, IMDEPTH coverage of some aspect of the individual's achievement, or some significant achievement. Newscasters, sportscasters, beloved major market on air weather forecasters, and pundits of all strips are discussed at AfD regularly - and get deleted because we demand WP:SIGCOV. Ping me if somebody finds some.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Young Turks is undeniably reliable but that's WP:NOTINHERITED. A redirect to The Young Turks, as Patar knight suggested, would be sufficient.LM2000 (talk) 08:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Iadarolo is hosting a series on the Greenland and the Arctic, shot this summer and airing later this year [54]. Rhadow (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, although it will "air" on Verizon streaming service (with some air time promised on HuffPost); the article not about him, except that he is mentioned as the host. nevertheless, changing my iVote to...

Redirect to The Young Turks. Suggest that interested editors incubate it there, and wait until coverage of his career gains a little more heft before hoping to move it to a freestanding article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

European Institute of Romania[edit]

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

Despite the fancy name, there appears to be no evidence this entity is notable, as defined by WP:BASIC. Right now, we have three sources: their own website, their bylaws (hosted on their website) and the decree that created them. Obviously, we're a long way off from "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I note the article creator has added several more links, but none of these are especially convincing. We have passing mention (a cabinet minister gave a speech at a venue jointly hosted by the institute), a report on a study about the minimum wage (the study author happens to work at the institute), passing mention (some guy gave a speech at the institute), a link to a paper on their site and passing mention about another conference.

What is still glaringly lacking are sources about the institute, as opposed to routine, trivial mention of its activities. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This public agency was created by Decree of the Government of Romania in 1998. Its budget is also approved by the the Parliament of Romania as part of the national budget. References to both the decree creating the institute and the law approving its budget have been added. Several references to its activities published by the Romanian National Press Agency (AGERPRES) have also been added. References from international sources in Poland and Moldova have also been added. The original criticism was that the references to its nature and mission were from its own website, but they were in fact legal texts approved either by the Romanian Government or the Romanian Parliament and published in the official journal. Now the reference to these legal texts is direct to the Legislative Portal sponsored by the European Union and the Romanian government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki15071 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 24 October 2017‎

- I suggest you contemplate the implications of the general notability standard: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The fact that something is created by decree or funded from a public budget does nothing to advance a case of notability. Neither do the trivial mentions I've analyzed above rise to a level of "significant coverage". - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Wiki15071 has misunderstood the points about notability in several ways, including the following. (1) There may be a case for changing the notability guidelines so that factors such as an organisation's budget being approved by a parliament contribute to notability, but at present that is not so. (And in any case, such a blanket criterion, without restrictions, would make no sense, as presumably we could then have articles about the group of people employed to clean the floor in a parliament building.) (2) Texts published by a government about an organisation set up by that government are no more independent sources than is the web site of the organisation itself. (3) Wiki15071 refers to "references from international sources in Poland and Moldova", but the nature of those sources can be illustrated by the one at the web site "Polish Aid", which merely tells us The European Institute of Romania has published on its website an article on the Polish system of development cooperation. The text was drafted in reference to the Polish participation in the conference on the Romanian model of development cooperation in Sibiu in July 2013. It contains information about the policy areas, implementation and financing of the Polish development cooperation program "Polish aid." That is not substantial coverage of The European Institute of Romania. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My checks and searches have confirmed what Biruitorul has said: this institute does not seem to have attracted any substantial coverage anywhere other than in sources connected to the institute. Brief mentions are not enough. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not convinced that the institute is notable enough. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no specific prohibition on an article of this type, and a consensus favoring keeping the article. bd2412 T 01:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of events at T-Mobile Arena[edit]

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

WP:LISTCRUFT. A multipurpose arena does not need a list of every event ever that will continue to grow as the years go on. Articles like this for Soldier Field and Wrigley Field make sense as those are not multipurpose arenas. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, except that I question whether similar articles are needed for Soldier Field and Wrigley Field, too. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The individual events are in general not notable and this is a list which will just grow to an unmanageable length as time passes and adds nothing of encyclopaedic value. Neiltonks (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So will every list of mayors and senators, and presidents until life on Earth ends. --RAN (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of the United States of America and List of events at T-Mobile Arena are two totally different things. A president will only be added every four years or so, whereas an event at this arena will be added every week. 208 years of presidents would equate to one year of events if I did my math correctly. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, if time is infinite, both list will be infinetly long. --RAN (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article creator. Doesn't fit the description of WP:LISTCRUFT, and the fact that an article will grow over time is not a reason for deletion. This is encyclopedic information, as evidenced by the fact that 1) Fully 25% of the entries in the list are standalone notable (all the articles in Category:T-Mobile Arena) and 2) of the rest of the entries, almost all of them are already listed elsewhere in the encyclopedia (such as at the articles about the various concert tours). This list simply takes encyclopedic, reliably sourced information and groups it by an obvious attribute (location). Also, see this discussion, where there was no consensus for the notion that such lists are not encyclopedic. Toohool (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A unique case, as the arena basically has events nearly every week of the year. As long as we keep it sourced (and this has done a great job unlike most arena articles), there's no real issue here. Nate • (chatter) 00:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Excellent list to complement the lists we have for musical groups and their tours. --RAN (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY: "mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." Are these "major events"? Not in my opinion. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If an WP:List article should be deleted just because it goes on and on, should other articles such as List of earthquakes in New Zealand or List of earthquakes in Japan be deleted as well since not every earthquakes are notable or noteworthy? Stating the frequency of updating an event as a criteria for deletion is not a very good reason in my opinion because every WP:List articles will be getting tremendously long eventually, it is only a matter of time. I do believe that the article page should be keeped, but I don't think every single event should be listed. My advice is that only mention a list of concert events while brief description for all other non-concert events such as sports, rallies or beauty pageants would suffice. Great job to the creator of this page for a well sourced article! Xinyang Aliciabritney (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike some, similar, articles this article is clearly laid out and extremely well referenced. I fail to understand why the nominator feels that such lists would be acceptable for single purpose venues such as Soldier Field and Wrigley Field, but not a multipurpose venue, such as this.
The partial quotation from WP:NOTDIRECTORY cited above relates to broadcasters, not venues, and reads in full: "For example, an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable."
There is no specific advice under WP:NOTDIR for venues. If we try to consider a parallel interpretation, then the "upcoming events" should probably be removed, but the rest of the list is a clear parallel to "historically significant program lists" so should be retained. IMHO WP:NOTDIR would need major clarification/expansion before it could be used to support such a deletion and, any policy/guideline review should consider the entire group of articles, not pick off individual articles one at a time. - Arjayay (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As extremely well referenced as it is, it still falls under criteria 7 of WP:LISTCRUFT: The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category. Soldier Field and Wrigley Field host 2-5 events a year, not 50. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTCRUFT is only an essay, not a policy or guideline, and it has not been vetted, or adopted, by the community. Your suggestion that lists for rarely used venues are acceptable, while lists for regularly used venues are unacceptable, seems remarkably counterintuitive. - Arjayay (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khabran[edit]

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

Local newspaper with no notability found. Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:V. Greenbörg (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 08:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 08:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the few Punjabi newspapers in Pakistan, see this and this, both reliable sources. Mar4d (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bhulekha[edit]

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

Local newspaper with no notability found. Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:V. Greenbörg (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 08:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 08:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable clearly as it is one of the few Punjabi newspapers in Pakistan. See the coverage in this Dawn article. Mar4d (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, and either of the editors who suggested redirecting can do so if they wish to. "Redirect ... alternatively we could keep" can't really be regarded as an argument for keeping, especially when the only reason given is "per WP:GNG", with no explanation why the subject satisfies that guideline. The only other reason given for keeping is that "AfD is for article deletions only" rather than for moving or merging the content, but since nobody has suggested doing either of those, while three editors have suggested deletion, that is irrelevant. Other than those there is clear consensus for deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh bik gayi hai gormint[edit]

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

We are not QUOTES site. Better we should have article List of Internet phenomena in Pakistan and cover these minor things there rather having article for every meme. Delete it as this fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and agree with the suggestion of making a List of Internet phenomena in Pakistan. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with the suggested above.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively we could Keep it per WP:GNG. See the list of examples here and here--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not really sure about the purpose of the nomination, as AfD is for article deletions only. If you want the content merged or moved, then there should be a merge discussion opened separately. I'm not sure how that amounts to deleting content altogether though. Mar4d (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Much of it is covered on the page List of Internet phenomena in Pakistan. Rest is per WP:NOTNEWS. If someone wants to add something you can add there. Greenbörg (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete and Redirect to List of Internet phenomena in Pakistan. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 05:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri De Jesus Messias[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was by the article's creator contested on the grounds that he plays for Naxxar Lions FC. However, since Maltese football is not fully pro, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY as Maltese league is not yet professional. The only source provided also might fail WP:PRIMARY. Article can always be recreated if and when subject meets said requirements. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the editor that create this article he played for Botafogo in top flight Brazilian league, if that's right he would pass NFOOTY, but I had a good google search and can't see any evidence for this. So I am under the impression some of this information is false. So delete on WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Govvy (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no indication that this article passes any of our notability guidelines, and I have been unable to locate any evidence that this footballer even appeared for Botafogo in either the state or Brazilian championships. Jogurney (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Monster Mayhem[edit]

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

Per WP:TOOSOON and a lack notable sources supporting the topic's notability. Comatmebro (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Yes, as of now, this game show has no secondary press/media coverage. But that is not unusual for a kid's show like this that hasn't even premiered yet (it premieres at 8pm tonight). As it is, I have found a primary source for this, as well as the official webpage for the show, and have improved the article. With a scheduled release date on a national cable network, this currently meets the requirements of WP:TVSHOW. We can revisit this later, after the show has aired for a while, to see what the secondary coverage looks like. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now added a secondary Canadian source (not quite sure of the quality of the source) from about a week ago. But secondary coverage still looks scant... Still sticking with my current !vote. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep nationally broadcast and should receive some secondary coverage in the near future Atlantic306 (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. It is one of Nickelodon's latest game shows. Plus, the other users are right about their claims here. --Rtkat3 (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

InvoiceBerry[edit]

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

Obvious spam of a non-notable company/software that is excluded by both criteria of WP:N: it fails in receiving substantial coverage that is intellectually independent and it also fails WP:NOT as a promotional directory listing. All the sourcing that exists is your typical press release churn, top 10 lists, and trade press, and get no real coverage of the likes that we typically expect of companies. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost a speedy case here. I could find no coverage that would demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If it were an article about the company and not the software, it would be A7 eligible, IMO. When it was created, the article was specifically about the software. I don't personally buy the startup/software distinctions (its like saying there is a difference between Uber the app and Uber the firm), but enough people on en.wiki do make a distinction that I thought it worth sending to AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bd2412 T 01:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SexoMercadoBCN[edit]

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

Non-notable spam article likely created in violation of the terms of use by a undeclared paid editor based on behavioral evidence. Its excluded by both points of WP:N: none of the existing sourcing that is available meets our requirements in WP:NCORP, and it is written solely to promote the entity itself, making it fail WP:NOTSPAM. In short: Wikipedia is not a venue for you to advertise a non-notable commercial sex forum. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SexoMercadoBCN spanish impact on the activity is quite comparable to the The_Erotic_Review site in the US. --Pulpoman.smb (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (I am a fluent Spanish speaker/reader.) I assessed the sources for this article and they are misleading as presented in the article. The only truly reliable source present is this article in El Mundo, but that source does not mention the article subject. I'm open to changing my position if someone arrives before the end of the week with good sources but as it stands, this article completely fails WP:N. A Train^talk 21:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Villar confirmed that she documented there her book in the forum with a registered user in this post. --Pulpoman.smb (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pulpoman.smb has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above lacks third party sources.Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:46, 1 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.

[1] Patent EP2498491 A1 Verfahren und Vorrichtung zur audio- und videobasierten Echtzeit-Kommunikation, September 12th, 2012, EUROPEAN PATENT, Retrieved Oct 16, 2017

[google-2] Smith, Angel (2014). The Origins of Catalan Nationalism, 1770-1898, p.200-203. Palgrave Macmillan UK. ISBN 9781137354495. Retrieved 23 October 2017.

[3] Chillida, Gonzalo Alvarez; Benito, Ricardo Izquierdo (2007). El antisemitismo en España. ISBN 9788484274711.

[Clua-4] Clua i Fainé, Montserrat (2011). "Catalanes, inmigrantes y charnegos: "raza", "cultura" y "mezcla" en el discurso nacionalista catalán". Revista de Antropología Social (in Spanish). 20. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid: 55–75. ISSN 1131-558X. Retrieved 12 December 2015.

[5] Jaume, Francisco (1907). "El separatismo en Cataluña: Sociología aplicada".

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]