Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 October	31 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael William Pitt[edit]

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

"Michael William Pitt was the first principal" without this i didn't found anything significant. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Aftabuzzaman (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 13:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 13:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 13:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 13:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest it is merged with Mirzapur Cadet College as the first principal of a school is of interest to the school itself, and belongs in the history section. However I am not seeing enough coverage in English language sources for a standalone article. Dysklyver 13:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's already in Mirzapur Cadet College - doesn't seem like there is anything to merge to there. In English the subject barely passes WP:V, and being president of a cadet college doesn't seem to meet PROF or any specialist guidelines. Coverage definitely doesn't meet GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable for stand alone article; agree with Icewhiz, above. Kierzek (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability. "Mirzapur Cadet College" reads more like a high school. Maybe we should look at that, too.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Bearian (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Victora[edit]

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

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is a 2017 recipient of a MacArthur Genius Grant, a hugely prestigeous award in the United States. He is also the author of a number of important scientific papers including one that has been cited by 1608 authors and many more that have been cited by over 100. This means he is of considerable influence in his field and therefore meets WP:PROF. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't tell us that. It doesn't mention the article. Rathfelder (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW keep. There's so little chance of us deleting an article on a MacArthur Genius winner that it seems pointless even to continue the debate. And the multiple heavily cited papers in his Google scholar record make clear that there is no case for BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as creator). Aside from the fact that he won a very prestigious award, isn't holding a named professorship also deemed notable for academics? Natureium (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually not for named assistant professorships. But there's plenty of other cause for notability here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to withdraw. Rathfelder (talk) 23:05, 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 delete per WP:CSD#A7. Mz7 (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrh3jmi[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. DrStrauss talk 21:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. Not in any way, shape, or form notable. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 21:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete should be WP:A7. Possibly promotional (link to iTunes) and hoax as well (net worth 1.6 million for an 11 year old?) _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 21:55, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ewan Bailey[edit]

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

This edit reminded me I'd tried to PROD this article in 2015 but the PROD template was removed for no apparent reason. This article, about a 'voice artist', is probably self-penned and is largely an unsourced CV. Though undoubtedly he's been active in film radio and TV none of the roles seem major enough to have marked him out for individual attention. Time for the article to go, fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Sionk (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . This article is actually embarrassing...sorry about my malformed template....but, if Wikipedia was a refrigerator, we would not put a turd in it and this article really is that bad. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total lack of reliable sources. Wikipedia is not meant to be a miror of IMDb, having this article basically makes it such a miror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sulisław of Cracow[edit]

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

Nonnotable historical person, scarcely mentioned in chronicles and genealogies Staszek Lem (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited a secondary source (which is preferred here rather than primary sources such as chronicles and genealogies) confirming that the subject passes criteria 4 and 5 of WP:SOLDIER. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Secondary say no more than chronicles. Yes, he is mentioned. But there is no non-trivial discussion beyond listing that he led troops from Little Poland in the battle. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Would appear to meet the criteria of WP:SOLDIER #4 and #5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources now on the page are reliable. I searched Sulisław + Legnica and can see a fair number of sources in Polish, books and scholarly articles both. He was, moreover the brother of a Voivode (ducal or princely rank and ruler of a territory) and his son succeeded to that throne. Meet WP:SOLDIER #4 and #5.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the subject is mentioned in the The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology, which is suggestive of notability. Led an army and took part in two notable battles. I think it's an acceptable stub on a historic figure at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Walsh (rugby league)[edit]

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

Fails WP:RLN as has not played in a World Cup, NRL or Super League match. Was named in the most recent World Cup but withdrew due to injury before the tournament began. Doesn't seem to have enough to pass GNG otherwise, only routine coverage. Mattlore (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP - has played 15 times for the USA. Pushing for this to be withdrawn by the nominator who must have been unaware.Fleets (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a reference to support that statistic. But regardless, he still seems to fail WP:RLN and GNG as, as far as I can tell, he hasn't played in a World Cup, Four Nations European Cup or a Pacific Cup. Happy to withdraw if he has. Mattlore (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The official 2017 Rugby League World Cup site states he has 15 prior international caps here. Aoziwe (talk) 11:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Fails WP:RLN. Was named to play in the World Cup, but withdrew. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet notability. I automatically presumed all the guys would get a run and didn't consider injury.. Jumped the gun I guess. StadiumXIII (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Article author has agreed delete. Aoziwe (talk) 11:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete playing in world cup competition is the test of notability, not being selected to do so and then failing to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suhayya Abu-Hakima[edit]

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

Actually there is no real coverage for her in WP:RS as per my search. Many sources are trivial so she fails WP:GNG. Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal was awarded to 60, 000 so can't be notable based on that. Störm (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Besides being a president and CEO of 2 companies, and holding 130 international patents, she is a recipient of the Order of Ontario (the province's highest honor) and was named one of the Top 25 Women of Influence by the (lesser-known) Women of Influence organization. This meets Any biography #1.. The sources for this article are reliable, independent of the subject, and diverse. Not sure why the nominator thinks these are trivial mentions. Yoninah (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator picked up on one award that doesn't show notability, but didn't mention the Order of Ontario that is the highest honour in that province and is given to an average of only 24 people per year, so is a pass of WP:ANYBIO. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Order of Ontario, the province's highest civilian award, is suggestive of notabillity. Perhaps, trim the article of extranous and intricate details; they actually obscure the notability of the subject and make the article look like a glorified CV. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Order of Ontario appears to give notability, and general good level of coverage. PamD 08:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject meets WP:GNG because of her contributions to her field and receipt of the Order of Ontario. She holds many patents and her papers are cited by many authors. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Yoninah. L3X1 (distænt write) 13:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Order of Ontario. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:05, 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 delete and redirect to Charlie Hebdo shooting#Victims. Clear consensus to delete. A redirect to replace it, pointing to the article itself, is plausible and logical. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mustapha Ourrad[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's this? The article's sourced, there are more sources in the fr.wp article, and there are versions of the article in four languages. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey: It's a violation of WP:BLP1E thought my nomination was very clear in that respect. This person's only reason for having an article is a single event and they did not play a large enough role in the event for that solely to warrant an article. Also I am not saying there aren't enough sources... And articles in other languages are irrelevant here see WP:OTHERLANGS. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 22:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL.Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Charlie Hebdo shooting per Icewhiz. Sro23 (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per BLP1E. All the sources here and on fr.wiki post-date his death. Daß Wölf 03:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear non notable person, borderline WP:BLP1E. The fact that article has four language version is not valid, en-wiki is not mirror of other versions. And something can be notable on fr-wiki but not here. The possibility of finding him (by redirect) is also very unlikely, as reliable sources search didn't show the name explicitly used. He is not known (in RS) for any other thing too, he is not the only one killed and his circumstances is no different from the rest. — Ammarpad (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's not a BLP (the person has been dead for over two years), the relevant link is WP:BIO1E. Regardless, WP:NOTMEMORIAL still applies. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Chapman (writer)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, which just states that she exists and doesn't offer any evidence that her existence would pass a WP:AUTHOR criterion. It's not based on adequate reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG either; between the single reference and the contextless linkfarm of external links, there are two articles which just namecheck her existence as a giver of soundbite, two articles where she's the bylined author and not the subject, and just one link that might count for anything at all toward notability as it's an actual critical review of her book. But it takes more than just one acceptable source to pass GNG if a person doesn't have a clean AUTHOR pass. For added bonus, this was initially written as a straight copyvio of her own website, raising conflict of interest concerns. There's just not enough substance here, or enough reliable source coverage about her, to deem her notable. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - doesn't look like she meets WP:AUTHOR.PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. My Singapore Lover, publisher Monsoon Books, revidwed in teh online version of the Toronto Star]] here: [1] a search for her book in gNews comes up empty [2], but a search on her name brought up a mention in the Quad-City Times, she has a story in an anthology by a local publisher. WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete thought I'd opined B4. Does not meet GNG or author criteria. Perhaps one day she will. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON, didn't pass even basic WP:GNG nor WP:AUTHOR her profession — Ammarpad (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW for lack of reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Moon (fanzine)[edit]

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

Non-notable football fanzine, amateur publication, fails WP:GNG. Article lacks sufficient reliable sources to assert notability. Jellyman (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete book source does not appear to be about the fanzine itself, and there is no link for the cited Peterborough Evening Telegraph article. I'm struggling to find one via Google. There's a passing reference in this book, but to me there is no need for an article. Peterborough United F.C. could mention the important facts about this zine in a line or two. = paul2520 (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly sourced article about a defunct fanzine. Not enough evidence of significant notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:18, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vétra (workwear)[edit]

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

Non notable clothing company, Fails NCORP & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 17:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like poorly translated promotional material for a non-notable company.PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oh, ouch, my eyes strained trying to read that. It's a bad translation and it smells of promotion, if there's an article-worthy topic here this isn't the article they're looking for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding Inside the Horrible Weather[edit]

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

The article is poorly sourced and lacking in evidence of notability. It contains no indication of charting, no commentary by music critics, no mention of awards, etc. It consists only of basic track listing information and release dates of music videos. Except for one paragraph of commentary on Allmusic, it cites only dead links that show no indication that they ever contained significant in-depth coverage before they were dead. Allmusic covers all music, not just notable music, and is generally not considered sufficient to establish notability. The article there is trivially brief. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the current state of the article is not relevant to its notability. Allmusic is far more selective than Wikipedia and counts for notability, also the review is a very long paragraph that could have been subdivided. The other named review New Musical Express is also a reliable source, it isn't linked but AGF. Will look for other sources later Atlantic306 (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic is not really particularly selective, and that paragraph found there is not really very long or extensive. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found another review at Sputnik Music here which is a reliable source and emiritus counts as a reliable review according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. The Allmusic review is over 300 words so is more than a standard paragraph. Atlantic306 (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sputnik piece is certainly a substantial improvement over what has been in the article over the last decade. I suggest citing it in the article, and including some of what it says. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I now notice some apparent problems with that Sputnik source's reliability: 1) The review is published under an anonymous username ("Kiran"), about whom I have found no actual personal name or clear identification, 2) the Sputnikmusic.com site is down, which doesn't bode well for the idea that this is a reliable source, 3) Although I had very limited time to review it before it became a dead link, my impression is that the site is (at least primarily) a WP:User-generated content community blogging site and should not be considered reliable. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has been decided by WikiProject Albums in the past that staff and emeritus reviews from Sputnikmusic are reliable sources - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Online only. I'm not sure how and when this was decided, but emeritus reviews have always been accepted in other reviews in other articles. By the way, the site isn't down, it just takes a while to load up. Richard3120 (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be wobbling up and down. I used http://isup.me to confirm it was down before saying that. I have since been able to get it to load sometimes. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: we have an AllMusic review and supposedly an NME review as well, but helpfully the issue and page number are stated so that should be easy to look up and verify. It also charted on the Billboard Heatseekers Albums chart [3]. That ought to be enough to pass WP:NALBUM for now, and hope to find more information in due course. Richard3120 (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added some prose from the NME review. Richard3120 (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above sources, which have been incorporated into the article. I think there's enough material to satisfy WP:NALBUM. gongshow talk 02:10, 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 redirect to Paranormal Activity (film series). Seems like it's either that or merge, but apparently a bit more discussion is needed for what has to be merged over. I'll leave that for interested editors and the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal Activity timeline[edit]

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

I'm not entirely sure we need a page specifically for the "timeline" of the Paranormal Activity series. On the main series article the description of the films starts out with "Set in YYYY...", which is quite sufficient for placing everything in the in-world timeline. Other than grammar or style tweaks, I cannot see this page being expanded much over what is currently there, which means that it's largely redundant to what's already been written. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paranormal Activity (film series) since a stand-alone article is unnecessary. Searching about timelines related to these movies, there seems to be third-party source precedent, but anything combining these sources can be done at the film series article itself. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paranormal Activity (film series). This timeline is a combination of in-universe cruft and significant overlap of Paranormal Activity (film series). --Animalparty! (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the above, but noting that a timeline presentation format isn't explicit in the target, so it wouldn't hurt to include one. Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no reason to keep the redirect, it is currently orphan anyway. Note: the other redirect Paranormal activity timeline would also become unnecessary. —Paleo Neonate – 01:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RGUIDE and WP:CHEAP. the purpose of redirects is to help people find target articles faster. If a redirect can plausibly be of use, and is not harmful or illogical, it's generally kept. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's still the case, but once upon a time it was observed that a redirect takes less server load than deletion does. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My argument was not about load, but the implausibility of someone typing "Paranormal Activity timeline" in the search instead of simply "Paranormal Activity" or "Paranormal Activity series"; but it's only an impression. —Paleo Neonate – 04:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on Paranormal Activity (film series). Vorbee (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and therefore redirect) to Paranormal Activity (film series) as explained above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Thanks to Glane23's improvements and additional references which have now satisfied the notability requirements (and removed the promotional language) (non-admin closure) Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pollo Tropical[edit]

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

The company fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The references provided are to press releases or corporate filings. The content (while fixable) is highly promotional e.g. "other craveable favorites" ... "freshness and quality" ... "flavourful chicken served hot off the grill". Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough reliable sources for this regional chain of 140 restaurants, operating since 1988, to establish notability under both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. I have added some book sources and copyedited to prune out much of the puffery. More needs to be done, to be sure, but this article which has been with us in various forms since 2006, is worth saving. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvements Glane23. With three of the references coming from the corporate website, WP:GNG hinges on the two book references. The books would need to have significant coverage - yet it appears both may be little more than mentions. Do you have access to copies of these books? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are available as Google previews with the urls in the references. Still working on the article, having just added a news citation relating to store closings. I think that suggests there are more references out there. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, based on this reference it looks like they are an international chain, not regional. I see plenty of RS mentions, albeit many of them are on the recent large-scale closings.PohranicniStraze (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With the improvements made for the article it now clearly passes WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Excellent work to those working to improve it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:10, 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 speedy delete. G11, pure advertising, Even if they are notable, this article must be removed. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Wall Street Capital[edit]

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

The only coverage I can find is WP:YELLOWPAGES material, something which Wikipedia is not. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 14:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:27, 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 redirect to First flush#Rainwater harvesting. Obvious redirect with clear agreement of it being appropriate, so closing early per WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First flush device[edit]

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

All references are dead and only one is archived - "Blue-Green Algae". It doesn't even mention the device. Little evidence that it exists, if it does, the article is almost all original research. DrStrauss talk 14:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect . to First flush. A really quick Google Scholar shows at least mention of first flush devices, but I'm not seeing a lot of detail in what I've seen to warrant a full article. The article appears pretty essay or WP:NOTHOWTO-like, but I could see the search term being used. If there is a stray source or two out there really establishing notability, I don't really expect much more than a stub article from what I've seen. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested seems reasonable. It's where someone would look DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: as above. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:55, 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) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Financial deepening[edit]

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

WP:NOTESSAY. This is just an essay full of original research and synthesis. DrStrauss talk 14:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The term Financial Deepening is widely used and should have an article. However, I agree that the article was in a very essay like state. I've made a start at reorganising the article and added more references. Jonpatterns (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've got a degree in economics and I've never heard the term. Then again, Ronald Reagan had a degree in economics and he could barely hold his own in a debate on economic policy with a house plant. The INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND THINKS "FINANCIAL DEEPENING" IS A THING, so who are we to argue? Passes GNG. I hate the article, for what it's worth. Carrite (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Standard term used in the literature e.g. Deepening and Nonbalanced Economic Growth FabianSinn (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article may need some improvement but that doesn't invalidate it's notability. Real economic term and has been used by a number of RS as evidenced by my little search. — Ammarpad (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawing nomination. SmartSE (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aicha McKenzie[edit]

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

I am unconvinced that our notability requirements for people are met for this article as I am unable to find substantial coverage in independent sources. The majority of the references currently cited are to the website of the subject's company and so are not independent. The HuffPost article is the best but is of dubious reliability. The inclusion on the power list of britain's most influential black people is an indicator of some notability, but I don't consider that sufficient without other sources which we can use to write a reliably sourced article. My own searches have not turned up much better, with this article about her company in the independent the best available. SmartSE (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep I think she passes WP:NSPORTS. She placed 3rd with the Hoop and 6th with the ribbon in gymnastics, at the 94 Commonwealth Games. If I'm wrong about the sports (and I may be since I'm not interested in sports in general so the intricacies of the rules are often lost on me), ping me. She does turn up in a lot of tabloid sources, however and probably would pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NGYMNAST by being a multi-medalist ('94 Commonwealth Games, bronze in Ball and bronze in Hoop). Since the prime of the subject was pre-Internet, sources will be hard to find via a Google search. So the presumption should carry its weight that eventually sources would be found if we went through hard archives. Even with that in mind, I think its a great sign that at least some sources are being found today. In view of all this, keep. RonSigPi (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found a paywalled Financial Times article about her and an article in the Independent about her. Also added links from her wins at the 1994 Commonwealth games back to this article. Stinglehammer (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: another version of the FT article is at https://www.ft.com/content/58dd870e-e23c-11e1-be25-00144feab49a and general good coverage. PamD 09:06, 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) 19:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Chaudhary[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACTOR attempt to bomb-ref single thing divided to look like two, suspected paid/close edit since 2014 Ammarpad (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Stub article, sources only briefly mention the subject, and three are dead links. ToThAc (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Heisler[edit]

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

NN sports agent, fails WP:BIO. While superficially there are many cites, many are to blogs and stat compilation sites, generally fail WP:ROUTINE's debarring of routine sports coverage from notability, and none provide Heisler himself with the "significant coverage" the GNG requires. Also AfDing Beverly Hills Sports Council, the agency he works for, which is similarly situated. The creator of this article is an SPA for whom edits to this and the BHSC are his only Wikipedia activity (and work by SPAs are common to both), raising WP:COI issues. Ravenswing 12:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after I reviewed all the other 29 references (with duplicates), there's nothing of biographical significant about him in RS. Also given it is a work of WP:SPA the deliberate attempt of overciting is clearly attempt to create fake WP:SIGCOV, example citing baseball-reference.com 8 times in the lead. — Ammarpad (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable sports agent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G6: DAB page "which disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title" -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Chetanananda (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Not a disambiguation page. Could move to become a stub article, but please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swami Chetanananda. Certes (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 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. Consensus is that the article qualifies for deletion as per WP:NOTESSAY. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between Delhi and New Delhi[edit]

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

WP:NOTESSAY. Redirect either to Delhi or New Delhi would be an option but there's little content that is encyclopedically useful that isn't already mentioned in either of those articles. DrStrauss talk 10:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DrStrauss, I Duly respect your suggestion to delete this page. But, I want to inform you that, I personally am a Delhiite, I have lived all my life in Delhi. But trust me, I felt the need to create this article because even we Delhiites are unaware of this difference. They just mess up using these terms interchanging. I myself had to search and flip a lot of pages and dig through all the information to collect it at one place where people may come and gather knowledge and may realize there difference.

It's a humble request to you, Kindly let this page to stay so that people stop getting confused between Delhi and New Delhi.

Thanking you

Deepanshu M. (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The WP:Lead to New Delhi states clearly enough: "Although colloquially Delhi and New Delhi are used interchangeably to refer to the National Capital Territory of Delhi, these are two distinct entities, with New Delhi forming a small part of Delhi." If the article creator thinks some valid point has been omitted in these articles, he should attempt to add there, provided it is not original research or a personal essay. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just plain not the type of thing a free standing encyclopedia article is written on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that this looks like an essay and personally I don't think this should exist as its own article. However, it would be good to explain some of the content in the Delhi and New Delhi article. There is definitely a difference between Delhi and New Delhi and it is something which many people get confused about. I think having mentions in these two articles will be good for everyone.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an essay and it should be discussed in the New Delhi article. I don't see anything worth merging. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a place for essays, and this is an essay. The topic should probably be touched on in the relevant articles themselves, but this is not how this should be covered, at all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haarika & Hassine Creations[edit]

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

Non-notable film production company. No CORPDEPTH. Sources are not reliable and there is trivial coverage of the production company which is not sufficient to establish notability. Promotional page created by a Sock User:Srinivastarun. FITINDIA 10:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an advert and violation of our WP:TOU, a clear and well documented case of WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:COI violations that the article should be WP:TNTed to deter such behavior in the future. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly intended as promotion. There's probably a notable topic here, but this article is not it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert D. Parker[edit]

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

lots of namedropping, inhouse publishing and vagueness, but the 6 tags at the top suggest nn Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should add Eric Crown and Tim Crown, by the same author and which suffer the name promotional, grey-area problems.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has a lot of stuff, much of which comes across as a very thorough search of media mentions, almost all trivial. There's nothing here to support a claim of notability and nothing further found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Atlantic306's argument is rebutted by Tony; Peterkingiron's "probably keep" argument sure reads like a delete !vote. A Train^talk 00:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Ansar[edit]

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

Not significant coverage to show notability. Most of this appears to be their own website. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Archbishops are normally included, was the subject of a television documentary on God TV Atlantic306 (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I fail to find relevant sources outside of primary/in-universe. God TV is not outside of the subject area (and its article is itself currently problematic)... Archbishops of large religions are most probably more notable, but this appears to be an obscure Baptist church (I also don't find much about The National Church of India). —Paleo Neonate – 18:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete archbishops in major Christian groups are typically granted the presumption of notability. I'm not finding anything to demonstrate that either the National Church of India or the archbishop are prominent and meet our typical standards of inclusion for clerics. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment according to his website he oversees 3000 churches and 44 bishops, but that is not a reliable source... Atlantic306 (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete I ran a proquest archives search on him, got 2 fairly recent articles, in one he was quoted demanding more police attention to attacksbeign made on Christians in a particulr village and region, in the other he was speaking at a large annual meeting of Christians. Both in general circulation press, but only those two articles, and neight enabled me to figure out what his rank/position is or even which denomination/sect he belongs to. Fails WP:BASIC, although do feel free to ping me to revisit if someone sources him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep -- If the claim of the number of churches and clergy under him is true, he is certainly notable. My initial reaction was that he would be a bishop of the Church of North India, but the relevant diocese for it appears to be Delhi. Christianity is a significant (though minority) religion in India. HIs church appears to claim to be the result of uniting parts of other denominations. Googling "INTERNATIONAL COMMUNION OF THE EPISCOPAL RENEWAL CHURCHES " produced nothing. Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches does not suggest he is linked. Nevertheless, I must say the amount about him that I find on searches does not inspire confidence. They make him look like an India TV evangelist with a grand-sounding title. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All India Ophthalmological Society[edit]

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

Needs refs to verify notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is very poor, even slightly spammy, but there are sufficient Google News, Books and Scholar hits to demonstrate that the subject is real and suggest (at a first glance) that there is a good chance that notability can be shown. It publishes the Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, which has its own very poor article (that maybe should be merged with this one?) but which also seems plausibly notable on a first glance at its Google hits. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lack of reference is not valid reason for deletion WP:NPOSSIBLE. Keep and tag any concern — Ammarpad (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shashikala Kumarasinghe[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not familiar with archery. A quick search of yielded this ^[1] that mentions "Sashikala’s achievements in archery are many. After completing her Advanced Level studies Shashikala had set her sights at archery in 2005 and qualified to be in the Sri Lanka team for the 2006 Archery Championships in Dhaka, Bangladesh. She won her first medal, a silver at the Archery Championships in 2007 and set up a National Record in the 70 meter event in 2008 and went on to win Gold at the National Championships in 2009. She was a member of the team which won a bronze at the South Asian Games in 2006 and at the 2008 bronze winning team in Kalicut, India also at the South Asian Championships."^[2] I am not sure if these are up to Wiki's standards or not. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.sundaytimes.lk/100110/Sports/spt17.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ http://www.sundaytimes.lk/100110/Sports/spt17.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Delete Well the individual did not compete in the olympics, so there is no sign of notability. Also, I have to say it is high time we reconsider automatic pass for all olympians, especially in the early days of the modern olympics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pretty complicated, but here goes: Anyone that competes at the Olympics is notable. Anyone from a world or continental/pan-national event of good repute in any of the sports that people have put on NSPORT is notable. Archery is absent from the NSPORT list, probably because there aren’t enough people interested in archery on wikipedia. I my opinion based on the spirit of NSPORT, anyone who competes in the Asian Games, is likely to be notable, and I am not seeing any evidence she is not. She is clearly a pan-national level athlete, and her home country is not English speaking - making finding sources harder. Even taking all this into account there are sources with substantial amounts of information on her, and a search shows she is notable, so that meets WP:GNG. Clearly worth keeping, and I note we are not helping the readers by deleting this kind of biography, its not even vaguely promotional, it is totally the type of article which an encyclopedia should have. So that’s 3 good reasons to keep. Dysklyver 15:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per the explanation above. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also agree with this explanation of the subject's notability WP:GNG Thsmi002 (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dilhara Salgado[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I created this article because I was also determined to create biographies related to archers from Sri Lanka. Dilhara Salgado is a female archer who has also competed for Sri Lanka at the 2010 Commonwealth Games, so that's why I created it. If you think still the article is not perfect I unanimously accept for the nomination of deletion. Abishe (talk) 09:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportpeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added some more info and references from Sri Lankan news articles (I'm sure there will be more) so passes GNG now I believe - Basement12 (T.C) 10:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I note that with this edit the nominator actually removed all trace of various news sources before nominating the article for deletion - Basement12 (T.C) 10:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 05:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep this archer is even more notable than the other one nominated by Sportsfan that I just commented on, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shashikala Kumarasinghe, this is because she won a silver medal (at the Asian Games), and also competed at the commonwealth games. Dysklyver 15:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The hack job on the article is puzzling, but the references deleted from the article still exist in the edit history. I double checked in web.archive.org to see that the first reference is also online. Deleting references from an article is not a valid path to argue in a nomination that they don't exist. Unscintillating (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Denver. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St. Pius X Catholic School (Aurora, Colorado)[edit]

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

no claim to notability-per WP:OUTCOMES, Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected in AfD. This is a Catholic school so the closest target might be Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Denver Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to archdiocese per nom. Note that per school article guidelines, this could have been done boldly without taking it to AfD. John from Idegon (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except I'm unsure that's the proper target, hence the "might be"--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a parochial school, generally it's the diocese. For a private school, it's the appropriate settlement article. This one is a little dicey, as there is no content in the archdiocese article about lower schools, and if it were in a smaller community, I'd say to redirect it to the settlement article. However, Denver is a very large city and the odds of additional content being added to the archdiocese article are probably a bit higher than to the city article. John from Idegon (talk) 15:15, 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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Kurdistan[edit]

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

I don't think this term is in use by WP:RS in any sense that is distinct from "Southeast Anatolia". There is already an article on Southeastern Anatolia Region, its not clear what notability this has as a separate article. Unlike Iraqi Kurdistan this is not a region that has any distinct legal status - Iraqi Kurdistan has a government, and was created as a legal entity under the Iraqi Constitution. Turkish Kurdistan, and the sources that use the language "Turkish Kurdistan" are talking about Southeastern Anatolia - I think this makes it a WP:POVFORK Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Turkish Kurdistan refers to a separate region than southeastern Anatolia. While not a de-jure administrative region under the Turkish regime's control, this region (defined by the ethnicity of the residents) is the location of a long standing conflict - Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present). Multiple WP:RS use the term - from news outlets, through journal papers, and of course reputable books as well.Icewhiz (talk) 10:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not refer to separate region and I have not seen any WP:RS that use this term in a sense that can be distinguished from Southeastern Anatolia. (For example, there are some WP:RS about endemic flower species.) It should be a redirect. I would support merging some of the content in the article. The "region" is not "defined" by the ethnicity of the residents, this is a POV on a controversial political topic, we don't create separate Wikipedia articles as WP:POVFORKs and this should be discussed in the existing article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is clearly a notable concept, defined as the lands where Kurds live within (mostly Southeastern) Turkey, and is thus not equivalent to Southeastern Turkey which also includes some ethnically Turkish regions. Also Southeastern Anatolia as defined in its own Wiki page has a verrry different shape, look at the picture [[4]]. It also has plenty of discussion in the English language -- [Google gives 99,300 for "Turkish Kurdistan" without Wikipedia included] [and another 113,000 for the near-equivalent "North Kurdistan"]. --Calthinus (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The whole concept here is of course one POV, a POV opposed by the current government in Istanbul, but that does not make it any less a point of view that animates actions of many people. It is a concept that exists and is discussed and explored by reliable sources. At heart all nations exist as a point of view, just some have more political power behind them than others. The threshold of creating an article is not when the notion has political power behind it to become a state, but something less than that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Denver, Colorado#Education. Per WP:BURO, going ahead and closing this as a clear redirect target, preferred under WP:OUTCOMES, exists. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International School of Denver[edit]

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

no claim to notability-per WP:OUTCOMES, Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected in AfD. This is a private school so no clear target. The claim of being the oldest... is from their own website Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it seems the entirety of its supposed notability is through its language programs, and the sources for these programs make up nearly all of its non-primary sources. Seeing as these innovations in language learning are becoming more common, this school has little to no individual notability. Bruzer Fox 09:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Denver, Colorado#Education as it isn't individually notable and that's what we usually do. John from Idegon (talk) 14:29, 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 redirect to Denver, Colorado#Education. Per WP:BURO, going ahead and closing this as a clear redirect target, preferred under WP:OUTCOMES, exists. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graland Country Day School[edit]

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

no claim to notability-per WP:OUTCOMES, Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected in AfD. This is a private school so no clear target Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per reasons given. Bruzer Fox 09:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Denver, Colorado#Education. John from Idegon (talk) 14:36, 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 redirect to Broomfield, Colorado#Education. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broomfield Academy[edit]

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

no claim to notability-per WP:OUTCOMES, Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected in AfD. This is a private school so no clear target Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Broomfield, Colorado. John from Idegon (talk) 14:38, 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 no consensus. Millstream3, please don't make snarky comments like this at AfD. A Train^talk 00:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC) A Train^talk 00:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Pellegrino[edit]

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

Fails notability standards. The bands he has been in do not have their own articles, and having some dance moves go 'viral' on youtube and being mentioned for performing Charles Mingus songs does not meet coverage guidelines. I see no evidence that he is notable ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a stub article (literally 15 minutes old) and not yet complete. Those bands should indeed have their own pages. [UPDATE: Too Many Zooz is actually on Wikipedia - I misspelt the name of the band.] This performer has gone in the space of a few years to busking on the New York subway to leading a jazz orchestra as part of an international music festival on prime-time TV in front of an audience of millions. You're most welcome to add to the article. I'd suggest expanding on the link with Beyonce Knowles and his more recent televised career. Millstream3 (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note- I'm not sure how waiting more time would make the performer more notable, and incomplete articles shouldn't be published. I don't think the performer is notable. That's my opinion, after performing due diligence. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - Of course it doesn't make a performer more notable; it allows for the article to be more complete. As you well know there are thousands of short stub articles for notable people on Wikipedia. If an internationally famous jazz musician who is the main guest on a BBC Prom and who plays at Ronnie Scott's isn't notable, you must have a exceptionally high bar for notability! Is music your field? Millstream3 (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You haven't helped your keep cause here by copying and pasting several sentences without using quotation marks and attributing it to the wrong source. I've corrected that and added another couple of things. I think it's currently borderline on criterion 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (music), because all the sources I've seen mention him briefly when writing about something he was part of. EddieHugh (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 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. A Train^talk 00:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Singaporean Chinese privilege[edit]

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

Only source cited is a Facebook page, and Google turns up only Tumblr entries, Reddit posts, private blogs, and the like. The other sources are solely there to synthesize a conclusion which is only supported by the first source. —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 14:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly fails WP:GNG at the moment. Could this be merged into Han chauvinism? That article is currently quite focused on mainland China, but IIRC it has had a wider scope in the past. Matt's talk 15:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure this could be merged with some other article on racism. Dysklyver 09:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Dysklyver. A quick Google search of my own did turn up a couple more reliable sources. Not enough for an article, but certainly enough for a mention elsewhere. Bruzer Fox 09:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FORK. If anything, I experienced more White privilege on my behalf in my visit to Singapore than what this article claims. Anecdotes aside, I don't see how this is notable. Bearian (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog (software)[edit]

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

Non-notable project management software. All of the references are either PR churn excluded by WP:SPIP and WP:ORGIND or blogs and other non-RS sourcing that also doesn't count towards WP:N. The page is also currently nothing more than a directory listing that runs afoul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons for nomination. Bruzer Fox 08:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article makes no claim of NOTEability, and I can't seem to find any on the web. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:53, 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 merge to Sharon Rich. A Train^talk 00:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweethearts (book)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. The two reviews cited are standard one-paragraph superficiality. E Eng 02:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect^{19:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)} ~~Delete~~^{Per Binksternet's rationale for keeping, I say Merge with Sharon Rich, don't need two. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)} ~~- per nom, not notable.~~ ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - seems to just barely meet NBOOK. I'd tend to rate Kirkus reviews as being above superficiality, personally.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Kirkus review, in its entirety, reads:

This lengthy biography of Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy reveals lives as melodramatic and star-crossed as one of their movies--without the happy ending. Author Rich (president of one of four MacDonald/Eddy fan clubs still extant in the US) reveals more about the two lovers than even the most avid fan might want to know, including Nelson's descriptions of Jeanette's ``little nighties. The question it leaves unanswered is how the feisty soprano and the lusty baritone, certainly among Hollywood's most popular stars during the late 1930s and early '40s, managed to make such goulash of their love affair. Although both singers regularly denied it, according to Rich, they were attracted to each other from the moment they met. MacDonald was characterized as ``an ambitious career gal with a bad reputation and was rumored to be one of Louis B. Mayer's couch tomatoes. Mayer, in fact, frowned on the singers' relationship for professional as well as personal reasons, but cast them in Naughty Marietta, their first film together. It made the duet stars--and brought them to bed after nearly a year of stolen kisses. It wasn't romantic. In a jealous rage, Nelson raped Jeanette, according to Rich. But she forgave him, beginning a cycle of reconciliation and rejection that went on for 30 years, and included suicide attempts and miscarriages. In a rejection phase, MacDonald married actor Gene Raymond (who, she discovered, preferred men as sexual partners) while Eddy wed a possessive woman who refused divorce, in spite of his numerous infidelities (MacDonald was not the only liaison). A source for much of the material, including intimate details of the couples' private meetings, is Eddy's mother, Isabel, via her son's diaries and letters. A filmography is included. A bonanza for MacDonald/Eddy fans, a pan full of nuggets for aficionados of Hollywood and MGM, but an encyclopedic struggle for the less dedicated.

While were at it, here's the other review cited in the article, from the LA Times:

Millions of people are still devoted to entertainers such as Judy Garland, Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe and James Dean because of their charismatic lifestyles and untimely deaths. But the real film phenomenon is the continued devotion of fans all over America to Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy, the singing co-stars who reigned in Hollywood during the 1930s and 1940s.

Their fan clubs, which include a number of Ventura residents, are thriving despite the fact that the pair has been dead almost 30 years. The largest Mac/Eddy club is headed by Sharon Rich, author of a controversial biography "Sweethearts," recently published by Donald I. Fine. The book describes a long-term off-screen love affair between the two, while they were married to other people.

At home following a book tour in England, Rich will do a live interview at noon Saturday on KQSB 990-AM in the Earthling Bookshop and will sign books beginning at 2 p.m. MacDonald/Eddy musicals will be screened all afternoon at the bookstore, 1137 State St., Santa Barbara.

This is superficial coverage. E Eng 17:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's added a third review to the article, from The Library Journal. It reads, in the entirety of its six sentences:

In the 1930s and 1940s, there was no singing due more popular in the movies than Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy. Conventional wisdom has always held that there was never anything between the two in real life. Jeanette, who earlier had starred in sophisticated comedies with Maurice Chevalier, enjoyed a long and happy marriage with actor Gene Raymond and exhibited an amused tolerance at best for wooden Nelson. Rich, president of the largest of an amazing four MacDonald/Eddy fan clubs in America, tells a different story. According to her the duo carried on an affair for decades. One wishes that some of the more sensational claims were better substantiated, but in the main, this book rings true. It is full of flowery language (from the principals' letters), illegitimate pregnancies, suicide attempts, mental breakdowns, and true romance. Fans will love it.

My earlier comment stands. E Eng 20:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kirkus and Library Journal are both good sources for books. I did find a long article about the book in the news here: here. Passes NBook. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A "long article" that says nothing about the book itself until the last three sentences is not much of a review. Another source you've added says about the book and its author:

As president of the Pittsburgh chapter of the International Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy "MacEddy" fan club, Mr. Wood, 71, of Houston, Pa., will be hosting a local meeting at his Washington County home with Sharon Rich, international president of the club. Even for those who have never heard of the singing screen duo -- and they are out there -- this should be a lively meeting. Ms. Rich, of New York, is the author of "Sweethearts," a lurid expose of the secret love affair between the two -- complete with suicide attempts, illegitimate pregnancies and marriages to others -- that lasted for nearly three decades.

[...]

"One hundred years from now, we'll probably still have fan clubs for Marilyn Monroe, Elvis, Michael Jackson and the Beatles, but I wouldn't put Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald on that list, or even in the top 100," he said. Ms. Rich begs to differ, noting that a film script about the star-crossed, adulterous couple is in the works.

The Paris Review "review" is a blog post that says nothing at all about the book until:

Only a few years ago, I ran across a book at a library sale that ripped the scales from my eyes. I refer to Sweethearts: The Timeless Love Affair Onscreen and Off Between Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy, by Sharon Rich. From the flap copy:

[Quotation of flap copy]

Obviously, I devoured it. Not only that, I spent a good long while on the author’s excellent and comprehensive Web site.

This kind of straining only makes it clear how superficial the coverage is. E Eng 22:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Kirkus in no longer reliable (nowadays they review for pay) , but it was in 94. In the past, we've usually considered three even brief reviews as sufficient for NBOOK. Personally, I think that's a pretty loose standard, as Kirkus and LJ basically tried to cover any book which might be suitable for a public library. This is a good place to start changing the interpretation of NBOOK, to prevent our coverage of books from being WP:INDISCRIMINATE. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG, you might be interested in

Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Library Journal and CHOICE. czar 04:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG This isn't exactly true as far as I can tell. Kirkus Indie is a pay to review journal, not Kirkus itself. Searches about pay reviews seem to always link back to Kirkus Indie for me. If you have some other sources that show Kirkus is "pay to review," I'd love to see them. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl, Kirkus and KirkusIndie are two halves of the same company. See their website. Such an intimate connection is in my opinion enough to make the entire company unreliable. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, DGG. I don't find your argument persuasive. It's really clear from the websites that there are different criteria being used. In the case of Kirkus they outline their submission guidelines in detail. Nothing is said about "pay to review." However, when you look at Kirkus Indie you see that it's clearly for pay. There's no reason to not rely on Kirkus because they have another venue for self-published works. It's easy to separate the two kinds of reviews on the site as well: if the book is self-published, then it's an Indie. Librarians recommend the use of Kirkus still and consider it a reliable source. See MLIS recommendations for review sources: LIU, UW, Evaluation of sources, UHM, and these are just a few I found after cursory search. DGG, your opinion is in the minority and shouldn't affect the way we look at NBOOK. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, I am quite accustomed to my opinion being in the minority, at least at first. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The above reviews have convinced me that enough of our readers will be interested in learning about the book. Also, E.J. Fleming cites the book a few times in The Fixers.[5] And Jane Ellen Wayne talks about the book on page 3 of The Golden Girls of MGM: Glamour and Grief, ISBN 9781861054074 ... There's also Victoria Etnier Villamil who cites the book in From Johnson's Kids to Lemonade Opera on pages 259, 260 and 291. Wait, we have Cari Beauchamp citing the book in Without Lying Down, on page 430. So let's keep this article about a book that is obviously influential in its field. Binksternet (talk) 08:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sharon Rich. I agree with DGG that there's no reason to have an article on both her and this book, and feel that the biographical article is a better one to keep. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK (and WP:GNG), article reflects this as citing two or more reviews that are non-trivial and independent of the author/book, i see that one of the footnotes of nbook is "1. The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment." so it could be argued that even a review of a single sentence can be enough, of course this would depend on the type of book being reviewed (and possibly who the reviewer is(?)), and may preclude 'flap copy', but thats enough waffling:). Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

also happy with a Merge to Sharon Rich :) Coolabahapple (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sharon Rich per Power~enwiki. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect with Sharon Rich, better to have one more substantive article than two short ones. But if consensus is keep, I won't complain. Montanabw^(talk) 19:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sharon Rich And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sharon Rich per my statement at the other AfD. Also per Montanabw. Probably better to have one substantive article for the sake of the readers than two short ones. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline:
A review in The Los Angeles Times called the book "controversial".^[1] According to Kirkus Reviews, the book is a "bonanza for MacDonald/Eddy fans" and people interested in the history of MGM, but too detailed for readers with less specialized interests.^[2] The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette called the book a "lurid expose."^[3] Library Journal wrote, "Fans will love it."^[4] Sadie Stein wrote in the Paris Review that she "devoured" the book and then went to Rich's website to find out more.^[5]
References
1. ^ Halpern, Frances (February 2, 1995). "Biography Takes New Look at Famous Duo: Author Sharon Rich tells of longtime love affair between Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 30 October 2017 – via Newspapers.com.
2. ^ "Sweethearts by Sharon Rich". Kirkus Reviews. Retrieved December 30, 2014.
3. ^ Carpenter, Mackenzie (19 May 2013). "Fan clubs keep the flame alive for stars fading from memory". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 30 October 2017 – via EBSCOhost. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
4. ^ Smothers, John (1994). "Book Reviews: Arts & Humanities". Library Journal. 119 (13): 89 – via EBSCOhost. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
5. ^ Stein, Sadie (2014-06-18). "The Whys and Wherefores". The Paris Review. Retrieved 2017-10-30.
There is enough information for a standalone article about Sweethearts.
Cunard (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkus and LJ are trade publications with short reviews and rather indiscriminate selection (their role is to help librarians select books, not to show discretion in their selection like a book review publication). The Paris Review and LA Times sources are mere blurbs, again with no depth. Pittsburgh's is inaccessible. This is a textbook case of a book whose coverage is written in context of other topics, which should serve as our guide on proportionality (read: we should cover it the same way). So merge into the author's article and mention as appropriate in the book subjects' articles. czar 04:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

on balance, I can think of very few instances where an author known only for one book and the book are independently notable (Gone with the Wind comes to mind as the clearest example. I can think of no cases at all where the author of a non-fiction book where the book is the only notable book, and the author known only for the same subject as treated in the book are both notable. They are certainly in that case not independently notable. Every instance I recall of 2 WP articles being written in this situation are either fan interest, or promotionalism . My bias is always to select the author in that case; the rationale is that the author is known for the subject, and the book is an example of that notability. (whne both a clear promotionalism, that's different--then we should delete both, as in other instances; but I do not think this is truly promotionalism) DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you DGG. Sharon Rich was recently closed as keep, so merging the book with her bio makes sense. Some may not think her notability is encyclopedic, being that she was a highly active and avid fan of two popular singing celebrities, but after the smoke clears we're left with a body of work that she created which received substantial media attention, and it has endured internationally which lends it some historic significance. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Leo[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has entries in The Encyclopedia of Popular Music and The Virgin Encyclopedia of Nineties Music which confirms that his "Hypnotic Love" was no. 1 on the UK reggae chart for 7 weeks in 1993. --Michig (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Also had two top 75 singles on the UK Singles Chart in the mid-90s ([6]). --Michig (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Michig's research. But someone should probably check the article for copyvio edits from this source: https://islandahradio.com/biography/. Robman94 (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I began removing copyrighted content but it would appear to have virtually all been copied and pasted from that source. Theroadislong (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's likely a fair amount of coverage in publications such as Echoes and Blues & Soul from the 1990s. One issue of Echoes that contains an article on Leo can be seen here. --Michig (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on the references above and in the article, it looks like he meets both WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER.PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  21:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anju Chaudhuri[edit]

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

Fails WP:NARTIST. Few of the claims are sourced and is approaching spam level wording. DrStrauss talk 14:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as the mentioned WP:ARTIST is in fact satisfied by the Victoria and Albert Museum along with the apparent national museum in her own country. The source for the former is absolutely enough and there are certainly chances sources can be found as by WP:Before; one currently found is a 1968 source. SwisterTwister talk 15:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED. DrStrauss talk 16:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the criteria of the notability guideline that you invoke in your nomination statement is "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums", which is nothing to do with WP:NOTINHERITED. We already have a source saying that Chaudhuri is represented in the collection of one of the most notable museums in the world, which goes some way towards meeting that criterion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the promotional wording. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have further cleaned up the article to ensure compliance with WP:BLP (diff). DrStrauss talk 21:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, probably speedy keep. The specific qualification for notability was present at the time of nomination--for those who thing the GNG is more important than NCREATIVE, it's a sort of shorthand, for it will always be the case that paintings in major museums are critically discussed in publications. The articles was not even particularly spammy for articles of this type---most articles on contemporary artists are much more flowery. If one is going to nominate articles for deletion, it helps to know what to expect from such articles -- and to know the guidelines. We probably have several thousand much more appropriate for deletion, on grounds of both dubious notability, and actually strong promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is a bad argument. DrStrauss talk 21:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, but it wasn't the argument made by DGG. Can you please reply to the arguments made rather than throw irrelevent straw-man links at the discussion like WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:OTHERSTUFF. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

most articles on contemporary artists are much more flowery = WP:OTHERSTUFF. Not a strawman. DrStrauss talk 07:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was ready to support, but could find very few serious references to her and her work. I checked the V&A collection and they do indeed have one of her works. WP:ARTIST says you need several museums though. I do not see notability being met by either mentions in RS or her being in multiple collections.96.127.242.251 (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of mentions in reliable sources: just click on the word "books" in the links at the top of this nomination to see some of them. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on books, and yes there are a couple decent refs. However the majority of the sources there are very minor, along the lines of "Illustrations by Anju Chaudhuri. Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company". The few items that are longer are only snipept view so I can't asses them.96.127.242.251 (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to assess them either, so haven't given a "keep" or "delete" opinion. How does your inability to assess them lead to a "delete"? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The references we can't read might be excellent, but who knows? God might exist too, but I tend to not believe that either.96.127.242.251 (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer not to get into a discussion about the existence of God, except to say that She or He or she or he is clearly notable despite the doubt about existence, but you make my point here about this topic by saying that we don't know whether these sources are excellent or not, so how can those of us who can't read them say either "keep" or "delete" on their basis? The sources clearly exist, so it needs someone who can read the full text to identify how much coverage there is. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we went by the "maybe there are good references but we cannot read them, so we should keep" argument, we would not be able to delete anything.96.127.242.251 (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The V&A is only one of several museums that have collected her work, so the subject meets WP:ARTIST. I noticed that sometimes here name is spelled differently, for example, the National Gallery of Modern Art gives her name as Chaudhry, Anju. See http://ngmaindia.gov.in/collections-artist.asp?strLetter=C Mduvekot (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The source given by Mduvekot confirms a pass of WP:ARTIST. I know that we only have two museums so far, but, given their stature, that's far better than being in the permanent collection of the "several" museums asked for by that guideline that are merely notable, rather than two of the most notable museums in the world. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've already given my support for keep, but as I continue to look for sources, I'm becoming suspicious of some of the claims made elsewhere about museum collections. For example, in the french version of the article there is a claim about being in the collection of the Musee d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris that I can't verify even though the museum has their collection online and one about the Musée national d'Art moderne that is incorrect; the Kandinsky library holdings of the museum include a catalogue of her work, her artwork is not in the museum collection. Other collections may also need some more checking. Mduvekot (talk) 23:16, 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 no consensus. If the article has issues that can be correctly framed in policy, then there is no prejudice against a renomination, but otherwise, Unscintillating makes a very good point. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maurício Abreu[edit]

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

The subject lacks notability and there are no mainstream references that suggest wider influence. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While I see his books on Google books, they are lacking info on publisher (self-published?) and I don't see any citations. Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. That said maybe someone can find better sources that are not in English; do ping me if there are more arguments so I can reconsider my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I will advise the previous user to take a look about Maurício Abreu publishing houses.Mistico (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean (or indeed prove?) Contaldo80 (talk) 08:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close The second snippet from WP:BEFORE D1 Google books is the book Geographers: Biobibliographical Studies, and states, "Numerous events were held in honour of Mauricio Abreu, and tributes paid after his death". I think it might be a different Abreu, but since the nomination doesn't mention it, there was obviously no WP:BEFORE reporting done here. The nomination also fails to make the WP:BEFORE report that there is an article on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Nomination also seems to think that Wikipedia requires "mainstream" references and topics must have had "wide influence". There is no point in putting in time on a topic when the nominator hasn't established a problem that needs attention, especially when the sources are in Portuguese. Unscintillating (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Mir[edit]

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

The subject has been in the news for some time lately but as of now, he fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Saqib (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected candidates are rarely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance and no SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Hafez[edit]

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

Dubiously sourced with little coverage not sufficient to pass WP:NWRITER. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the subject has a de.wiki article, which is suggestive of notability; see also Worldcat identities. I found this review of the book that he has edited:

Islamophobie in Österreich. TAFAZOLI, HAMID. German Studies Review, Oct 01, 2011; Vol. 34, No. 3, p. 707-708. A review of the book "Islamophobie in Österreich," edited by John Bunzel and Farid Hafez... more

Here's another book:

Humayun Ansari and Farid Hafez, From the Far Right to the Mainstream: Islamophobia in Party Politics and the Media (Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 2012)

My impression is that he's a recongnised expert on the subject of islamophobia, also authoring annual reports on the topic, which are reasonably well cited. So it's a keep for me, on the balance of things. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with a suggestion to WP:Translate parts of the German Wikipedia article. Bruzer Fox 09:14, 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 redirect to Overseas Pakistanis. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistanis in Sweden[edit]

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

There is little coverage with not much details to write stand alone article without WP:OR. Article is mostly sourced with dubious sources. Fails general notability criteria WP:GNG. Alternatively, redirect to Overseas Pakistanis. Störm (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Overseas Pakistanis. Fails WP:GNG and there's little hope of improvement. Sjö (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Swedish Indians and rename the article South Asians in Sweden or similar. There are notable Pakistanis in Sweden and the article Swedish Indians is presumably notable enough for inclusion itself. Nuke (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Um...about that... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Overseas Pakistanis, per Sjö's comment. Bruzer Fox 09:17, 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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Run Features[edit]

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

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, either interviews or business as usual announcements, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a well-known and successful indie and doc film distributor, but I too can't immediately find any in-depth coverage beyond acquisition announcements. I think I remember once reading a piece on the CEO and/or the company, but can't find it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some sources I found: The New York Times, indieWire (a bit press release-ish), a couple of the acquisition announcements in Variety 1, 2. Google Books Search shows a few passing results. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the above sources, an 1999 article from The Advocate [7] ("After years of struggle, First Run Features thrives with gay and lesbian home video"). And First Run was the subject of multi-film retrospectives at the Museum of Modern Art in 2001 [8] and in 2009 at the Film Society of Lincoln Center.[9] --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the NYT piece was the one I was thinking of. That, with the Advocate, the retrospectives esp. the Film Society push it just past the bar, for me. Weak keep. The NYT piece really needs to be added to the article, of course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as there seems to be room for good improvement. Bruzer Fox 09:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there seem to be enough references, and the sheer number of notable films they've distributed is enough to give them the benefit of the doubt. I'll add the NYTimes reference found here to the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interstudy[edit]

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

No notability on its own. Promotional stuff. Fails WP:ORG. Störm (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability. Entirely promotional. Fails GNG, WP:NCORP and WP:SPIP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aujan Group[edit]

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

Clearly a large organisation, but all the sources are its own web-site or its own regurgitated press releases. Nothing here appears to be independent and reliable. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I looked at Google news 1st page and found sources, checked the article and see a variety of sources already in the article, and see from the article that the company was founded in 1905 and is in 70 countries. No problems verified. Unscintillating (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oviously it passes WP:GNG, a large conglomerate (intercontinental operation, existed for over 100 years) and actually the sources that reported news outnumbers the said press releases. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. an obviously major company,so inclusion here is appropriate. We should interpret the GNGin such a wy as to get reasonable results. DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Merger & Acquisition Advisor[edit]

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

Non-notable title/certification that is not supported via reliable sources; Google search provides little promise. only (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. The existing copy suggests that it's a non-notable title from a Alliance of Merger & Acquisition Advisors, which doesn't appear to be notable either. Nothing independent found, and article currently has no references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Phil Anselmo. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Isolation[edit]

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

Non-notable group; fails WP:BAND. No third-party sources. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Notable members are an indicator that the subject might be notable itself but the almost total lack of secondary sources does not supersede that; it still fails WP:GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phil Anselmo#Southern Isolation where it is covered sufficiently that this article is redundant. --Michig (talk) 18:08, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Opal Weinstein[edit]

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

WP:NOTINHERITED. Non-notable musician whose claim to fame was being married to Phil Anselmo. No third-party sources, fails WP:MUSIC. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 00:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability and so does Southern Isolation which is wikilinked in the article and should also be deleted as it fails WP:BAND. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete having a notable spouse does not generally make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.sundaytimes.lk/100110/Sports/spt17.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[2] ttp://www.sundaytimes.lk/100110/Sports/spt17.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[3] Halpern, Frances (February 2, 1995). "Biography Takes New Look at Famous Duo: Author Sharon Rich tells of longtime love affair between Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 30 October 2017 – via Newspapers.com.

[Kirkus-4] "Sweethearts by Sharon Rich". Kirkus Reviews. Retrieved December 30, 2014.

[5] Carpenter, Mackenzie (19 May 2013). "Fan clubs keep the flame alive for stars fading from memory". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 30 October 2017 – via EBSCOhost. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

[6] Smothers, John (1994). "Book Reviews: Arts & Humanities". Library Journal. 119 (13): 89 – via EBSCOhost. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

[7] Stein, Sadie (2014-06-18). "The Whys and Wherefores". The Paris Review. Retrieved 2017-10-30.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]