Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 September	18 September >

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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference[edit]

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

Article relies solely on primary references. The conference is mentioned in reliable sources, but minimal in depth coverage to establish notability or verifiability. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Category:Bishops conferences. Google Books, Google News, etc. all have plenty of in depth sourcing. There have been major Australian legal cases involving them, oh, and yes, every Catholic bishops conference on the planet more than meets GNG in sourcing either from the Catholic press (which, do count for notability) or the local press in their own country. I highly suggest that this nomination be withdrawn. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a national organization of a major religion. I see plenty of RS coverage in quick perusals of the Find Sources template. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions yes, but most of what I saw was mentions of the Conference or quotes about or from it. I'd like to see some sources that establish notability. -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A strange nomination; reliance on primary sources is not a reason for deletion if the subject is covered in secondary sources (which this one certainly is). St Anselm (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for obvious reasons mentioned. Perhaps the nominaror us not initiated in the subject to be aware of its notability. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom is mistaken, but it appears that this is a good-faith nomination. Any of us can make such an error as bringing this to AfD (I saw an AfD recently where someone wanted to delete a Diocese in Italy with a similar justification) when we stumble into a field that we know nothing about and find an article that appears to us to be self sourced. Next editor to swing by should just close it. Or User:Whats new? could do so.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:RS. IMDb is not a WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Shah[edit]

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet WP:GNG. the awards listed on the bio were won by programmes, not by the subject himself. there are few namesake in G'news. --Saqib (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has notability as a Pakistani TV producer of 2 recent and popular TV shows from 2014 and 2016. He himself may not have won awards for his individual work as a producer, nevertheless he still remains a recognized TV producer of popular TV shows. I have just replaced 2 non-working links on his Wikipedia article. He had news coverage as a TV producer both on IMDb and the Dawn (newspaper)...Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide RS which can verify your claims. --Saqib (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib, my impression is that IMDb is an RS for TV personalities ! Yes, there are several people with Tariq Shah names listed on IMDb. I had to select Tariq Shah No. (V) (producer) to get to his page on IMDb. All I am saying is that he is a known producer of popular TV Series in Pakistan regardless of whether he has won any awards or not. Also I have just added another RS (The Express Tribune newspaper) besides Dawn newspaper reference. If it's still not enough, let Wikipedia staff delete the article. It's only one article among many.Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a RS. I have removed Dawn reference because I don't see it mention the subject. --Saqib (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, Saqib. Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet WP:GNG references to insubstantial. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability seems promising, poor referencing is should not result in deletion, it should be marked for improvement.--INDIAN REVERTER (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Commey[edit]

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

minor party candidate for mayor, sourced only to his campaign site, and an official listing . Will only be notable if he wins. Possible speedy G11 as a campaign advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being as yet unelected candidates for mayor, even in New York City — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that they were already notable enough for an article for other reasons prior to becoming candidates, then they do not become notable enough for an article until they win the election. Bearcat (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG campaign WP:PROMO
Delete A promotional campaign brochure which fails WP:NPOL as a bio of an unelected candidate for political office with no outside notability. AusLondonder (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates for mayor are not notable, only those eleected.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-> Not meeting WP:NPOL currently. Hitro talk 11:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I gave it a shot, my gNewssearch [1]. No notability found at all for this fringe party nominee.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Priit Reiska[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has been called up to the Estonian national team, and that he has played in the UEFA Champions League. His Champions League appearances were for not for a fully pro league club, and his national team appearances were before Estonia joined FIFA (meanning they're not tier 1 matches), so neither of these satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KGIG-LP[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no reliable secondary sources. A Google News search came up empty. Prodded, prod removed by Mlaffs without improvement, so I'm bringing it here to determine whether an article with no shred of secondary coverage is worth keeping. Huon (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are four specific criteria that a radio station has to meet to qualify for a Wikipedia article per WP:NMEDIA: (a) it has a license from the appropriate regulatory authority (the FCC, in this case), (b) it is actually in operation rather than existing only on paper as an unlaunched station, (c) it actually originates at least some of its own programming in its own studios rather than operating purely as a rebroadcaster or relay of another station, and (d) all three of those facts are verifiable. This does need improvement, yes, but it meets all four of those conditions. The FCC records aren't by themselves enough to get the article's quality assessed up on the high end of our quality scales, but they are enough to cover off the basic keep/delete question, because they are a valid source. Again, yes, it needs more sources than this before it can actually be considered a good article — but just allowing the article to exist doesn't require any more sources than it already has. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Bearcat. Carrite (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Per Bearcat. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:09 on September 21, 2017 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zafuan Azeman[edit]

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

He has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Tommy Syahputra (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails subject specific guidelines - specifically NFOOTBALL, football coverage is ROUTINE, no indication of notability for anything else so fails GNG. ClubOranje^T 13:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is clear, although it is likely worth including, as one editor put it "a small amount of content about this" in 2017 Riyadh summit. bd2412 T 23:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump orb[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme. This should be given the same treatment as "Longcat" was in 2006; delete and salt. KMF (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has extensive sourcing, it is hard to see how this does not meet wp:GNG. --do ncr am 03:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the proposer's rationale sums it up. Should we add "Not Know Your Meme" to WP:NOT? Volunteer Marek 04:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not encyclopedic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:RECENTISM was responsible for making this brief media story appear more significant than it truly was. No WP:LASTING impact resulted from this and let us try to remember wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Make Wikipedia Great Again by deleting this article and enforcing WP:NOT. Believe me, it will be amazing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – well sourced article with significant media attention. MB298 (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Not meme" is not policy and it's not true as Wikipedia contains articles about hundreds of memes from All your base are belong to us to Zinedine Zidane. We even have a substantial category of political memes. So, instead, our actual policy is that Wikipedia is not censored which means that we don't delete stuff just because some busybody doesn't like it. Andrew D. (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"NOTCENSORED"? Seriously? NOTCENSORED is NOT "anything I happen to like". Volunteer Marek 08:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTCENSORED has to do with content that's potentially offensive to someone, not all content that's just of questionable basic notability. And we maintain articles about memes that can demonstrate enduring significance that passes the ten-year test, not just every meme that exists. Also, Zinedine Zidane cleared our notability standards for footballers quite independently of any meme status he did or didn't have, so he's in no way a reason why it would be necessary to keep this. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge Anything involving Trump is going to generate intense coverage, we need more than that to demonstrate that this goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS. We'll have articles on the number of ice cream scoops he receives if we don't show some restraint. Portions of this may be useful at 2017 Riyadh summit though.LM2000 (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While it is true that the subject got extensive coverage at the time, not everything that the media focus on is worthy of a dedicated article on an encyclopedia. All those sources are solely centered on a news spike that only lasted for a week. WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. LM2000 is right that at the depth of media coverage that Trump generates, we could eventually end up having to keep an article about every single object he so much as touches if the only standard we applied is "did it get a blip of press coverage at the time". To actually warrant an article, however, this would need to pass the ten-year test for enduring significance, which I'm not seeing any evidence that it does. LM2000 is also correct that a small amount of content about this at the article on the Riyadh summit would be acceptable, but it doesn't need its own standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Donald Trump in popular culture. Orb does not warrant its own article and should be included in the mentioned subarticle. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia. Neutrality^talk 19:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of the WP:NOT arguments work, not even the newly made up one. This is not trivia, it is not not encyclopedic, and it doesn't get deleted because it is a meme. Nor does it belong merged to another article. It is just basic application of WP:GNG, which a review of the sources listed in the articles shows that it easily meets. Unscintillating (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2017 Riyadh summit. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Violates WP:NOT, fails WP:N AND WP:GNG. This is a classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. Of the 45 sources currently in the article, all fall within the first 2 weeks of the initial reporting and 80%+ fall within the first 3 days. Current "GNEWS searches". provides very few sources after the first 2 weeks and the few that appear after that period, "1"., "2"., "3"., "4"., none contain significant coverage. Clearly after 3 months this article does not have enduring notability. Neither WP:N and WP:GNG apply as both exclude stand alone articles that violate WP:NOT. CBS527^Talk 13:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - Why does this article exist? This is pure WP:NOT. Jdcomix (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaoblai (talk • contribs) 10:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that violates and is WP:NOTNEWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing (talk • contribs) 18:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS Mr. Anon 515 15:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2017 Riyadh summit or Delete: A good sign that this falls afoul of WP:NOTNEWS is that all of the sources are news articles dated from May 21st to May 30th. Basically it was a meme for a week and then it was forgotten. Compare to the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident which has a song inspired by it, and continued coverage and discussion to the modern day. Who knows, maybe 50 years from now the Trump Orb will be the subject of similar lasting notability, in which case this article can be recreated with sources that aren't just pundits talking about it on the day it happens, but we don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL or orb for that matter. We could create an "in popular culture" section on 2017 Riyadh summit and give a brief blurb on the Trump orb. That would be proportionate coverage IMO. This article is not. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are many good arguments above. This is Wikipedia not a Newspaper or Know Your Meme. PartyPresident (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are many good arguments above. This is Wikipedia not a Newspaper or Know Your Meme. The GNG does exist, though. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This does not meet the GNG in any way shape or form. PartyPresident (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CNN, VOX, Business Insider, TIME, CNBC. Glad to hear those don't count as multiple independent in-depth RS.L3X1 (distænt write) 13:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1: are you aware that, as per the policy, WP:GNG only confers an assumption of notability that may be undone by the article being WP:NOT material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finnusertop (talk • contribs) 16:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To whoever wrote that, I didn't get your ping. Yes, I am aware of this useless hypocrisy, so IAR. L3X1 (distænt write) 13:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SUSTAINED. It's very telling that the coverage around this incident died down within a week after the meme sprouted up. Mr. Anon 515 16:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Alot of internet memes are receiving way more coverage than they did a decade ago, so the nominator's argument doesn't hold any water.Americanfreedom (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~and salt~~ WP:RECENT and WP:NOT. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck the salt part, per User:HighFlyingFish, below. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~and salt~~ - As noted above, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of memes. This is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Shelbystripes (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hold the salt, per User:HighFlyingFish. Shelbystripes (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I totally support delete, but why Salt? On the off chance this meme ends up passing the Wikipedia:10 year test (it almost certainly won't given that based on the sources, it doesn't seem to have passed a one month test, but who knows, I'm not psychic) I don't see why we should stop re-creation of this article. If people recreate it identically or otherwise try to circumvent this discussion that's what Db-repost (Speedy Deletion Criteria 4) is for. Has this page been deleted and disruptively re-created in the past? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the policy at WP:SALT is that salting is only for pages that have been "deleted but repeatedly recreated", which is not the case here. The policy suggest other measures for per-emptive creation protection. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No lasting coverage. See WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a non encyclopedic collection of trivia. No lasting societal impact & no subsequent coverage. A flash-in-the-pan type of an event. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:Notnews; passing trivia. Kierzek (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per HighFlyingFish above. Lack of continued coverage. shoy (reactions) 18:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - new school newsy trivia, not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep/At least merge into 2017 Riyadh summit (or maybe Donald Trump on social media)/Probably rename — OK, so I'm not sold on the inelegant title "Trump orb" (it wasn't even his orb!). But this rises to a level beyond just a "meme"—and incidentally, the main difference between notable political moments like this, and ones in the past, is that we just didn't use the word "meme" yet. (Was Clinton's reference to Sister Souljah a "meme"? What about this? Point is, plenty of peripheral political minutia is "notable" in context.) Trump touching the orb was notable in many people's minds because it marked a very visual turn from Trump's declared "anti-globalist" policies on his campaign to the realities of his governance. Wikipedia has to balance policies like WP:RECENT and perceived "RECENTist" tendencies with the RECENTist reality of culture outside Wikipedia itself. People are interested in encyclopedic assessment of moments like this—a place where a range of commentary and sources are assembled and balanced in line with other Wikipedia policies. Further, it's the kind of thing that people will continue to look up over time. Naturally, interest spiked months ago, but that's the long tail in action—and the end of the long tail has value, too. At the very least, a summary section on this should be merged into 2017 Riyadh summit, maybe a mention on Donald Trump on social media. —BLZ · talk 17:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We need more than an assertion of "meets GNG" to justify keeping this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Deslatte[edit]

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

Small town mayor who fails WP:NPOL. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Merge to List of mayors of Pineville, Louisiana is also possible, which even though it is a red link, is already linked from Template:Pineville, Louisiana Mayors. Unscintillating (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence this passes GNG (contrary to the above claim). The references in this article are either articles from a small town newspaper about that small town's mayor (not enough for GNG) or lists of election results (not even relevant to GNG). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- One moment in your !vote there is "no evidence", and the next there is "not enough" evidence. Plus your !vote is WP:IGNORINGATD, so is not policy based. Unscintillating (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe you will find that "not enough for GNG" is a subset of "no evidence of passing GNG". You'll also find both that arguments to avoid is an essay, not a policy, and that the section you linked has absolutely nothing to do with anything I wrote, as I am not arguing against either a merger or redirection. No target for either has been identified which currently exists. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - From WP:NPOL: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion". Local news coverage does not satisfy this according to WP:BASIC.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The evidence that he passes WP:GNG is not being demonstrated by this article as written. Of the 14 references here, eight are primary sources and one is a clarifying footnote rather than a source, leaving just five pieces of purely run of the mill local coverage in the local newspaper — a type and volume of sourcing that could be shown for absolutely every single person who was ever mayor of anywhere at all. It takes more than this to make a mayor of a place the size of Pineville notable enough for inclusion: more sources over a wider geographic range than just the local pennysaver. If Pineville had a population in the hundreds of thousands, this would be keepable but would still need to be flagged for refimprove — but at 13K it's no dice. Bearcat (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bearcat says it all; no need to repeat. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Quill (band). MBisanz ^talk 18:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Born From Fire[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC, redirected to The Quill but got reverted. Propose redirect (again). Kleuske (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Quill meets the criteria for notability. Released eight albums over 22 years, all on various independent labels worldwide. Have toured all over Europe and in the United States. Danger2 (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not nominate the band, I nominated the album. Notability is not inherited. Kleuske (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Album was released today and will most likely enter the national charts next week. Article now meets criteria with various independent sources added. Danger2 (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: what basis do you have for claiming that the album will enter the charts next week, considering none of the band's previous albums appear to have charted anywhere, including in their native Sweden? The AllMusic review is a user review, not a journalist's review, so isn't a valid source; the two external links merely confirm the release, not the album's notability. So the article (and previous articles for albums by the band) still lack reliable sources. Richard3120 (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added online review from German Rocks Magazine as reference Danger2 (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Quill (band): I was waiting to see if the album charted this week as confidently predicted above, and surprise, surprise, it didn't. The German Rocks review is a reliable one, but with only one RS in the whole article, it doesn't pass WP:NALBUM, which requires multiple reliable sources. Unless another RS is found, I agree with redirecting the article to the band. Richard3120 (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added online review/reference from Swedish newspaper Barometern Danger2 (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The album charted on the official Swedish sales-chart for week number 36 at number 8 in the most sold vinyl-category. http://www.sverigetopplistan.se/ (see category "vinyl" and week 36) Danger2 (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So it didn't make the make the main national chart, then. Richard3120 (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the newly added sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Quill (band). As Richard3120 points out, new reference really doesn't add notability criteria. Ifnord (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garri Dadyan[edit]

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

Not notable and unreferenced. I have searched extensively on Google (all, news, books) and on Newspapers.com for references, and found only incidental or commercial mentions. The only pages that link to this are two lists and an article on the name 'Garri'. Listed awards are mostly memberships, and I couldn't find reliable sources for the others. Leschnei (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was tagged for notability in January 2007, a month after it was created and prodded in November 2007. Both the tag and the prod were removed by DGG

, here, because there is a list of awards. However, I could not confirm any of the awards or memberships (or installations) independently, perhaps due to the fact that I don't speak Russian. Leschnei (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of these claims can be verified by a reliable source.Rogermx (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails WP:CS as mentioned by Rogermx hard to see how it meets WP:BIO editor may have written as WP:PROMO--EC Racing (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Jan[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a model, whose claim of notability is referenced almost entirely to primary sources and blogs that cannot support notability at all. Of the seven footnotes here, literally the only one that represents a reliable source is literally a 40-word (I counted) blurb introducing a YouTube video, which means it's not substantive coverage of him either. Nothing here passes our subject-specific inclusion criteria for models, and the sourcing isn't even close to getting him past WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My searches have not turned up substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of secondary sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as spam (G11). (non-admin closure) KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 22:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny: The Revenge Left Incomplete[edit]

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

Unreferenced self published article by the author themselves (also added Endurance (2017 Novel). Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) and WP:GNG. Appears to just be WP:PROMOTION. KylieTastic (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero presence in reliable sources. Self-published book written by non-notable youth. I'd propose speedy deletion if I could figure out which criteria to use. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:COI article about a new self-publication, consisting largely of a promotional synopsis. No evidence of notability provided or found. (As with Endurance (2017 Novel), in the absence of a speedy-deletion category for books, a CSD G11 may be a possibility here: Wikipedia is not a free-ad site.) AllyD (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endurance (2017 Novel)[edit]

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

Unreferenced self published article by the author themselves (also added Destiny: The Revenge Left Incomplete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) and WP:GNG. Only has 22 'reads' but articles claims 30K worldwide. Appears to just be WP:PROMOTION KylieTastic (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero presence in reliable sources. Self-published book written by non-notable youth. I'd propose speedy deletion if I could figure out which criteria to use. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:COI article about a self-publication consisting largely of a promotional synopsis. No evidence of notability provided or found. (Responding to a comment above, there is no speedy-deletion category for books, though a CSD G11 may be a possibility here.) AllyD (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As noted, no evidence of notability, clear WP:COI. Shelbystripes (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having no independent sources. As they use the third person in this comment I'm not sure if it is the person themselves or a representative, but it is a COI either way. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just a vanity article by probably the author themselves. Jupitus Smart 09:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vipin Singh Maurha[edit]

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

PROD removed with poor explanation saying he was the Prince of Maurha Ballia UP and observed that his notability was inherited. Although, sources are user-generated and questionable. Fails GNG and BIO. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 14:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 14:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 14:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 14:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom. Fails at WP:GNG. Notability can not be inherited. Hitro talk 15:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Poorly sourced. Autobiography. David.moreno72 15:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manoranjan Ravichandran[edit]

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

PROD removed by OP. New young actor with one movie in 2017. Not enough work to be notable. Image is a copyvio of facebook.com/realmanoranjanravichandran/ Page makes POV assertions without sourcing. Alexf^(talk) 14:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG for now.Is upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. It looks like WP:TOOSOON to me too. -- Alexf^(talk) 02:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the concept has received sufficient coverage to satisfy the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. The article will be moved to Autoconstructive evolution per the suggestion of Mark viking. Malinaccier (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconstructive[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTDICT as a non-notable term with little significant coverage. User:Power~enwiki PROD-ed it but was de-prodded. DrStrauss talk 13:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Wikt there's nothing at wikt, so wiktionary-ising rather than deletion seems a good default, unless someone wants to use the many available sources to pass WP:GNG as an article (rather than a dict def). Widefox; talk 22:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Autoconstructive evolution. The multiple reliable sources added by SwisterTwister (Nice work!) show that autoconstructive evolution is a margianlly notable concept in evolutionary computation. As it stands, the article content is a reasonable stub and mostly describes the concept, not the etymology of the term. But titling it with just the adjective causes confusion on what this article is about. --Mark viking (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, per Mark viking's point. If it turns out that it can't be grown beyond a stub, then it can be merged into a larger article at a later date. XOR'easter (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lee Spector -- it appears to be a private theoretical conception of his own--all the substantial references cited are by him or his group. Looking at the full list of authors for each shows the situation. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to a red link isn't a good idea. --Mark viking (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should rather have said redirect to new article on Spector, or repurpose to an article on him. This is not an infrequent occuraance , when someone writes an article on aconcept or a work wihthout realizing that the creator would be the better and more comprehensive topic. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 19:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Herb Muschel[edit]

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

Fails biographical notability standards. A search for sources returns little in the way of independent, reliable coverage except an obituary. IP de-prodded. DrStrauss talk 13:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. There's a full NYTimes obit. That's always been accepted as proof of notability (at least after 1900). It's strange that a WPedian with extensive experience at AfD doesn't know that. And there is no evidence at all that any attempt at BEFORE was done. DGG ( talk ) 15:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: apologies, although I often respond negatively to BEFORE criticisms this one is correct. Withdrawn. DrStrauss talk 19:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Most of the arguments to keep the article are weak and rely upon an inappropriate criterion for keeping the article. There are a few instances of coverage from the period that suggests the incident may meet the general notability guidelines, but this is borderline and difficult to determine. The arguments to delete the article have not sufficiently addressed the issues of contemporary coverage or other issues pertaining to the notability of the incident. No consensus has emerged from the discussion. Malinaccier (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Am Clipper Panama[edit]

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

Cargo flight crash not notable enough for independent article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GNG, with no fatalities on a cargo flight in an aircraft with a relatively poor safety record. There is no cause for this article to remain in mainspace.--Petebutt (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the claims, and who makes them, that this aircraft has a poor safety record? There are not such statements that I see in the aircraft's main article nor in the List of accidents and incidents involving the Douglas DC-6. ww2censor (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a major airliner was destroyed. A lack of fatalities ≠ a lack of notability. GNG appears to be met. Mjroots (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Aviation Project's own accident task force's criteria states that: The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport so this article is entirely appropriate and justifiable as suitable for its own stand-alone article. An aircraft that drops and engine, catches on fire and is destroyed is a pretty notable event whether carrying cargo or passengers, and in terms of Irish aviation, especially related with Shannon Airport, which at that time the last port of call before the long trans-Atlantic flight, this is notable for the Ireland project and Shannon and is suitably sourced. The nominator should withdraw this instead of pushing deletion. There are numerous non-notable, unsourced and trivial articles that should probably be deleted long before this. ww2censor (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria quoted from Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents applies to whether the accident should be listed in an article about the aircraft, airline, or airport. However, it also says, "By consensus this should not be used to determine whether a stand-alone article should exist or not." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - However, Metropolitan90 it is guidance, otherwise, what is the point or use of having an essay of this kind in the first place? Absolutely none in my opinion, so delete it. ww2censor (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ww2censor, when you say "delete it", what is "it"? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Metropolitan90 The essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents you referenced in your previous post. ww2censor (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the list of DC-6 accidents, where it is not yet mentioned. It appears to me this does not need a stand-alone article - there isn't a lot of content and more importantly there is a lack of significant coverage to satisfy the GNG threshold. The sources for the article are a database of Pan Am aircraft; a database aiming to include all airliner accidents in history; a contemporary newspaper article; and a single page of a 270-page book that apparently "Lists all known crashes with an Irish connection within Ireland and outside of Ireland", or in other words, another database. There have been 185 DC-6 hull losses out of 704 built, just over 26%; not as good as the DC-7 and not as bad as the DC-4. As for the accident task force criteria, those have been thoroughly discredited in AfD discussions over the years, such that now its main criterion is that the subject meets the GNG and everything else amounts to guidelines regarding in how many different places (airport article, aircraft type article etc.) information about a crash might be placed. YSSYguy (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @YSSYguy: If you are going to complain about lack of reasonable, not even reliable sources, let me point out that there are several stand-alone article that rely significantly or even solely on the aviation-safety.net website in 1959 alone, such as Ariana Afghan Airlines Flight 202 to mention just one. Many other stand-alone articles use that source in addition to one or two others that are just a vilid as those I have used to justify their notability. And, BTW, you may want to dismiss out-of-hand the use of the entry from a 270-book which happens to be the most highly researched and specialised book on Irish airmail related accidents and incidents ever produced by the world's expert on the topic who has researched this for about 30 years. The aviation-safety.net mentions two other sources that I have not been able to find anywhere online but if you can find FAA-Daily Mechanical Report no. D 150 (03.08.1959) and ICAO Accident Digest Circular 62-AN/57 which seem like important documents, I will appreciate it. ww2censor (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who's complaining? As for the other articles, perhaps nobody has opened a deletion discussion about them yet; anyway, I assess every article for which I contribute at an AfD discussion on its individual merits. The sources are reliable, but they do not constitute significant coverage - I already knew the book by Vogt was meticulously researched when I posted above, but with one page out of 270 dealing with this crash, it just cannot and does not constitute significant coverage. The other two contemporary documents would not constitute significant coverage either, I see bulletins (which is what they are) of that nature all the time in my job and they just give a brief account of safety-related events. YSSYguy (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of accidents and incidents involving the Douglas DC-6. A cargo flight crash with no human fatalities doesn't merit an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ww2censor and accident task force's criteria, a similar level incident to British Airways Flight 2276.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of another Wikipedia article about a different event involving a different type of aircraft in a different year when airliner accidents are much less common is not a reason to keep this article; and you have misread the accident task force's criteria, which do not constitute reasons for creating an article - "This essay includes generally accepted criteria for when to add mention of aircraft accidents to articles about airports, airlines and aircraft type articles. By consensus this should not be used to determine whether a stand-alone article should exist or not." YSSYguy (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a particularly noteworthy non-fatal cargo flight accident that should be listed List of accidents and incidents involving the Douglas DC-6 but doesnt need a stand-alone article. A non-fatal piston-engined accident was fairly common and would not stand-out in the 1950s and would be lucky to get a mention in the news. MilborneOne (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was mentioned in the news, having been picked up by UPI per one of the sources, and I'm certain, if I had access to some contemporary Irish or British newspapers, it would be mentioned there too. I have requests out for additional sources but likely will not get that until next month when I meet these people in person. ww2censor (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly cant find it in the London Times, I would also argue a brief mention in the news at the time of the event still doesnt make the accident noteworthy, it still fails on being a non-fatal cargo flight with piston-engined aircraft, we have a fair number of fatal accidents to cargo aircraft that have not been considered to be noteworthy for an article so we have lists of accidents and incidents to different aircraft types to capture hull-losses that are not noteworthy for a stand-alone accident which is were this should be. MilborneOne (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mjroots and Ww2censor comments above. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was debating (to myself) just what was "serious" hull damage when I looked at this crash - where the plane was destroyed. Whatever "serious" is, I am sure complete destruction of the plane meets that criteria. Ifnord (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Rui Xiang[edit]

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

May not be notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Someone who may or may not be the subject has complained on the help-desk that this article is inaccurate. Everything should be verified if it is to be kept. (NB. This page has been deleted before). Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 12:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 12:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 12:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 12:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 12:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the sources cited in this article are broken links or don't link to anything specifically relevant to this person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he is best known for being a generic team member in a soccer movie, he is not known at all. Warrants an imdb entry but that is it. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carving a Sky[edit]

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

Not a notable book, as far as I can tell. Google returns 49 hits, some of them having only those words in that order without referring to the book, and none of them being independent reliable sources with substantial coverage of the book. Largoplazo (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a new citation from WordPress. Will that do? I do respect the decision you take about the page. Sometime in future I will try submitting Draft for the same page to you keeping in mind the issues raised.

Thank you.

Shui8 Shui8 (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete social media, non-notable wordpress blogs, are not WP:RS. While a publisher's website might be cited for facts like the pub. date, it is not an acceptable for supporting notability. My brief searches found no WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with others. Fails GNG, lack of in depth Reliable Sources. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional Tool[edit]

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

Humorous as it may be, this article does not meet notability guidelines. (WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC). I have checked Google, but can't find any reliable sources. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 11:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 11:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 11:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nader Nader[edit]

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

Doubtful notability. Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per GNG, not appropriate for en.wiki? I am sifting through a lot of spam about Ralph's name being at the end of a sentence and then beginning the next one, so i can't find very many Russian sources.L3X1 (distænt write) 02:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 05:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ek Deewana Tha (TV series)[edit]

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

Subject is a TV show that has not yet aired. PROD removed without substantial improvement. First reference was a from tellygossip; replacement reference is 15-second YouTube from Sony, not a secondary source. This article may be submitted again when show airs. Rhadow (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD discussion was created on 6 September 2017, but it was transcluded the 2 September 2017 daily log. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was added for Afd discussion due to lack of sources. However, this article has been updated with other sources which I think are appropriate. Hence, I would request to check the article & remove it from the discussion as this has relevant source of information.Nazmamumtaz008 (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 08:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources (pinterest is anything but a reliable source!) and no indication of notability, and it is so promotionally written that once it becomes notable, the article would have to be completely rewritten anyway (in fact I think it could have been a speedy deletion candidate as pure advertising). --bonadea contributions talk 08:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are more sources added to the article for improvement. It is for an upcoming tv series on Sony tv which is soon going on air. I would request you to kindly help in improving the article to avoid deletion.

Regards Nazmamumtaz008 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not give any kind of significant coverage; they are trivial mentions of gossip around the show. Yes, it is upcoming, and hence it is unlikely that it is notable yet. As requested I have done a little bit of cleanup/improvement, but there is nothing that can be done to the article in order to create notability, if it doesn't exist. --bonadea contributions talk 05:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:TVSERIES. Also, WP:TOOSOON. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 23:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with GeoffreyT2000. I do see a lot of mentions, so anyone we can ATD redirect this to? Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 02:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly redirect to Namik Paul (actor) until it is released? L3X1 (distænt write) 02:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Håvard Vederhus[edit]

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

Young politician who never held office in accordance with WP:POLITICIAN. Geschichte (talk) 08:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here passes WP:NPOL — being district leader of a political party's local chapter in one city could get him past NPOL #2 if he were sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG, but this isn't referenced even close to well enough to meet that standard. Nothing in the article whatsoever constitutes an automatic "must include" just because he existed — actual members of the Storting get that, but local organizers do not. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Simpkins[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a web journalist, not referenced to any reliable source coverage about her in media. Of the three references here, one is the IMDb page of a film she was involved in, one is a directory of her writing on the website she works for, and one is her own demo reel on YouTube -- which means none of them are acceptable sources for a Wikipedia article at all. As always, every person who exists is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article -- she needs to be the subject (not the author) of media coverage in sources other than her own paycheque provider to qualify for one. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 08:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG not enough RS. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Arthur Skinner[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Has no significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. — Za wl 08:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability requirements for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romana Umrianova[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO JMHamo (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Shao[edit]

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

Lacks notability; reliable sources don't appear to exist; coatrack for fringe theories. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 06:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 06:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 06:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i have got rid of fringe material hanging on this wp:coatrack, I can't see any notability. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 14:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nitesh Yadav[edit]

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

Unreliable references fail to demonstrate notability. Highly promotional sources, probably blog sites. Mar11 (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequately sourced puffery. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete most of the sources (on and off the article) are similar to tabloids. They are not reliable sources for sure. Fails general notability criteria as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Khắc Khiêm[edit]

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

Subject fails subject specific guidelines (WP:NFOOTBALL) having not played in a senior international match or a fully professional league. Coverage all appears to be routine so fails WP:GNG Contested PROD ClubOranje^T 11:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Tommy Syahputra (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. As the subject of the article's age is 19 this seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON and article can always be recreated if and when the subject meets said requirements. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Voice of the Philippines (season 1). (non-admin closure) — Za wl 17:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Klarisse de Guzman[edit]

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

While there is some coverage, it is all of the routine or trivial and solely about her time on the show. Non-winners of reality tv shows rarely get their own articles, and I see nothing here to show that this person has done anything to warrant it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Voice of the Philippines (season 1), she's clearly had no successful career outside of the TV series and it's generally the case on Wikipedia we'd only create a standalone Wikipedia article about the winners of TV series like these. Sionk (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shia Channel[edit]

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

Promotional and unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article having more social media information than anything encyclopedic. Appears promotional and fails GNG in the present context. Mark the train^Discuss 13:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Za wl 17:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aedes canadensis[edit]

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

No citations and is orphaned. Also a very obscure animal which is hard to prove exists. BSOleader (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – inherently notable per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Below are some sources from Google Scholar. More sources are available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Environmental Entomology
Annals of the Entomological Society of America
Annals of the Entomological Society of America
Journal of Medical Entomology

Keep Notable as per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. "All species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are inherently notable" ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, but we need to resolve or explain the taxonomic dispute per WP:NPOV. Ochlerotatus#Taxonomy seems to be a POV argument that Ochlerotatus is "accepted", but reading between the lines it's still hotly disputed whether it's a proper genus or a subgenus of Aedes; most recent sources for the species seem to refer to it as Aedes (Ochlerotatus) canadensis [2] [3] [4] [5] FourViolas (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Ochlerotatus canadensis, if I correctly understand the taxonomic issue. In any case, valid species under one of these two synonyms. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above, I have also expanded the article a wee bit and will do some more work. Need to check if Ochlerotatus is a generally accepted species as most sources I have checked have the accepted generic name as Aedes.Quetzal1964 (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded further, reinforcing my Keep vote but I am also in favour of a move to Ochlerotatus canadensis.Quetzal1964 (talk) 06:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All species are notable. Also, the current title should be kept, as ITIS (a source for WP:INSECTS) has Aedes as the genus name. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 00:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; here's the link for reference. FourViolas (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Troakes[edit]

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

Clearly quite a busy actor over his career, but I can't see any major roles at all during his career. They have all been bit parts as far as I can see. Having many bit parts, however notable the TV shows, isn't a claim to notability. When the PROD was added this week I searched for any possible claims to meeting WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR and couldn't find any (so I left the PROD alone). PROD has now been removed by ANOther, I think it's time to take this to AfD. Sionk (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the person to PROD the article, and seeing no improvements whatsover. The article would need sources to show WP:GNG and I have no reason to assume they are out there. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 12:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Soto[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR, only source is IMDB (three roles in short films and his own youtube series) and a WP:BEFORE search does not turn up anything significant Melcous (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find coverage or other evidence to demonstrate that the subject meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG at this time. gongshow talk 23:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He seems to have only played small roles in films that are mostly unheard of.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FSOJM791 (talk • contribs)
Delete no evidence he meets the notability criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zoka Coffee Roaster & Tea Company[edit]

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

Local coffee shop, notability is not asserted to explain why it is different from any other small business around the world. Source provided of local magazine with short blurbs of their favorite shops would not be significant coverage, even if Zoka were listed – subject is not even in it! Reywas92^Talk 07:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, though I could be persuaded to change to 'weak keep' if anyone can find anything else about Zoka. I agree the coffee shop review currently used as a citation doesn't mention Zoka. They are a long established coffee company, they were subject of an article in the Seattle Times, but this was entirely based on a rumour that Soka was in financial difficulty ...is this something the company would want to be notable for? There is one very good online article in the Puget Sound Business Journal (though some may consider that only 'local'). A review by the Coffee Chaser says the company have been "below the radar", which suggests to me they haven't sought publicity, leading me to think there may not be much pre-internet (despite the company having quite some longevity). Probably fails WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victrola Coffee Roasters[edit]

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

Local coffee shop, notability is not asserted. Sources are not significant independent coverage that focus on the topic to provide evidence of why this coffee shop is different from other local businesses around the world. Reywas92^Talk 07:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, though the company has quite a few mentions in local Seattle news sources, this probably isn't sufficient to meet WP:NCORP (which requires some wider coverage for businesses). Seattle is only a mid-sized city so I wouldn't consider Seattle news sources to be enough in themselves (even if I could see a substantive article). Maybe someone needs to take a look at the other businesses profiled in the Coffee in Seattle template. A sensible solution would be to redirect this article to Coffee in Seattle. Sionk (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wahaj Ali[edit]

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his IMDb profile says he only appeared in one TV programme [6]. i assume he may had minor roles in other programmes listed on this bio. second, there is not much coverage in RS. beware of namesakes in G'news. unless we have a RS confirming that he won the awards listed here, delete vote from me. --Saqib (talk) 08:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Guy into Books (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third re-list. Hopefully more people from Pakistan can comment; there isn't a strong consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete - The subject may have been nominated for the awards but didn't win any. Also has passing mentions in RS: Gulf News & The News. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Tung-Jung Hsieh[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources specifically about him - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously not a run-of-the-mill businessman. President/CFO of New Oriental and audit Chairman of JD.com — these are super-famous companies in China.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) - 89 Google News results, including Forbes, Financial Times, etc.

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) - 369 Google News results

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

I'm moving the article to Louis Hsieh, that's his common name in English. Timmyshin (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Timmyshin. Bondegezou (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mass Appeal (media). MBisanz ^talk 18:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contact High Project[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Promotional article, created by a now-banned sockpuppet. Edwardx (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very selective Merge to Mass Appeal (media). While not notable on its own, there is a little bit of coverage in independent sources. Mass Appeal media already includes a list of projects that this would fit perfectly in. menaechmi (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC) (as the suggester, I would offer to do the merge if this AfD goes that direction) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not even sure this deserves a mention in the parent mag. But wouldn't hurt. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the column were notable, there is no reason it would warrant a standalone article. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eazy E & N.W.A. photographs by: Ithaka Darin Pappas[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Promotional article, created by a now-banned sockpuppet. Edwardx (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of citations in the article but they are mostly irrelevant and don't represent sufficient depth of coverage.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Bók[edit]

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

Actress with questionable notability, has only 3 roles, not sure how notable the roles are-but it seems like none of them were that notable. Wgolf (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete her roles are not significant, so she does not pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I guess. I don't really care. But her role in The Turin Horse is certainly notable. She's the female lead of the film that won both the Silver Bear and the FIPRESCI prize at the 2011 Berlin Film Festival. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks to Santa Claus of the Future's identification of her role as a leading character The Turin Horse, which does appear to be a leading role in a notable film.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. There is clear consensus that this person is not notable enough for a standalone article, and the removal of most of the content on copyright/spam grounds argues against a merge. Hut 8.5 21:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heini Zachariassen[edit]

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

Biography of a software developer. Article is mostly a duplication of content that is already published in the article of a company he co-founded, Vivino. Subject is not notable as an individual, coverage is about the business, not the person. Tried to redirect, was reverted. Mduvekot (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The Forbes, CNN Money and Business Insider are all great citations, but not enough to give Heini Zachariassen personally notoriety. Has he done anything outside the Vivno business that would make him notable? Also as mentioned above the whole history section of the page is copy/paste from the Forbes article. I suggest there be a paragraph only on the Vivno Wikipedia page until such time as Zachariassen can pass notoriety on his own.Sgerbic (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't challenge the quality of the entry, Zachariassen notoriety goes beyond Vivino as he's regarded as one of Faroe Islands and Denmarks most known entrepreneurs, now living in San Fransisco. One source would be https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/280083 83.248.89.10 (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Vivino. No coverage or apparent notability apart from articles covering the company he founded. The entrepreneur.com article mentioned above appears to draw mainly from Zachariassen's Vivino experience.Dialectric (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm fine with merge. I didn't think it was necessary to retain this article, since practically all the information in the source is already present in the target, but a merge accomplishes the same thing as delete and redirect, but with the added benefit of preserving the edit history. Can someone please close this? I suspect it would be inappropriate for me to do so. Mduvekot (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not independently notable of Vivino; I'm generally not in favour of redirecting nn BLPs to a company, as the subject and the company might part ways in the future. The article is full of puffery about the subject's vision, etc. Created by a single purpose account Special:Contributions/Creative2world, that also recreated a highly promotional article Jared Sawyer Jr. The MO is highly suggestive of promo editing, which is on full display in the article on Zachariassen. The redirect had already been attempted, but was reverted by the article's creator, since my vote for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I was perhaps too eager to compromise, given the low number of participants in this discussion. Mduvekot (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also "Delete" on copyvio grounds; a good chunk of the article is copy/pasted from Forbes/sites; pls see: Copyvio report. BTW, Forbes/sites is user submitted content (essentially a blog, with no editorial oversight), so it does not count towards notability. So, "delete" all around. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've removed the copyvio, and also removed a lot of the spam. Once those two are gone, there is nothing worth merging. Also, I'll note that this article was likely created in violation of the terms of use: see edit filter 867, which the article creator has triggered on four separate articles. That filter is designed to catch likely commissioned works that are created perfectly in one edit by new users. Deletion as promotion per WP:NOTSPAM are justified on those grounds. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Novarium (band)[edit]

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

Horribly-sourced article about non-notable band. Orange Mike | Talk 02:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. The souring is poor to nonexistent, and my search could find little about it. Would be willing to reevaluate my opinion if sourcing was provided. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried to find sources for some of the claims, but haven't found any depth of coverage of this band. Much of the article seems to appeal to their connections to others that are notable. WP:TOOSOON seems to apply. Gnome de plume (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Time/Your Time[edit]

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

This is an article devoted to a TV pilot – unaired TV pilots are generally not considered notable except under exceptional circumstances, as per WP:TVSHOW. Sourcing does not establish notability. NathanielTheBold (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON since it's been ordered but that's no guarantee it will be scheduled or aired. If/when it is confirmed for CBS's schedule, then it can be re-created without difficulty. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relist final
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:BALL as noted above. A pilot order doesn't guarantee or even assure a series pick up, many pilots are never seen by the public. This is premature. Shelbystripes (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 05:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salekur Rahman Rahe Bhanderi[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. All Primary sources and press release, even creator have included his own article link as reference. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 05:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree , Sources are about celebration not notability and they don't fulfill criteria of WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. -Intakhab (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was on the fence about this for a while, and I don't necessarily feel strongly that the article should be deleted. All things considered, though, I think that's the very close call that has to be made. As was mentioned above, the sources are mostly about modern day celebrations and a school - many of the English language sources don't even mention the subject of this article at all. This one belongs in the enormous pile of South Asian religious figures who are obscure even in the region but whose fans attempt to exploit Wikipedia as part of their social media campaigns. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - All of the sources that are best about Bhanderi seem to be closer to blogs or forum posts than truly reliable sources. Blogs can be RS, so if anyone who knows more about the authors of those posts can speak to their expertise, I'd be willing to reconsider. But as mentioned above, the authors seem to be primary interested in promotion, and thus not improve what doesn't look like a great case for reliability. There are also some more reliable sources that cover urs for Bhanderi. I don't think articles about urs alone should be the basis of an article, but can definitely help the article satisfy WP:V. But I don't think there is enough reliable source material on his life to pass WP:NPOV. An alternative possibility could be to focus on his legacy more, perhaps a good stub can be written on that basis, I'm not sure. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Seigal[edit]

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

Doubtful notability. Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

H-P Products[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage is available. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. Greenbörg (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable vacuum company that makes no real claims of significance. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sole reference in the article, to the company's own site, cannot demonstrate notability, and my searches are finding nothing better than product announcements and reviews. Clearly a company going about its business, but lacking demonstrable encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gale (Loudspeaker)[edit]

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

Fails in-depth coverage criteria. Fails WP:NCORP. Greenbörg (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Same reasons as previous AfDs. --Michig (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails criteria for notability notably WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Wikipedia is not a substitute for a company website and there's nothing in this article that provides any indication of notability. There were two previous AfDs and editors commented that references had been produced to meet the requirements for establishing notability. Having examined the provided references, my opinion is that the references fail as follows: This reference from "The Age" fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a mention in-passing in relation to the range of speakers available from a Perth-based distributor. This review of the Gale Gold Monitor provides no details about the topic and fails as a reference for the company although it may count as a reference in an article about the speaker/monitor itself. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boofle[edit]

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

Not much coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no independent sources in the article. It is also overtly promotional, so fails WP:NOT. e.g. "Many Boofle owners are proud loyal collectors and take them everywhere." yuck. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bowers & Wilkins. Interested editors can use the page history for merging. (non-admin closure) — Za wl 17:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Bowers (loudspeaker builder)[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason you object to a redirect to Bowers & Wilkins? --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bowers & Wilkins, he's already mentioned there and the company is his legacy. It would be possible to very selectively add a bit more background info about him to the company article. Sionk (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bowers & Wilkins or redirect if nobody can find anything to merge. The company is notable, the individual probably not. Carrite (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HEMYCA[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage. Just promotional stuff. Fails WP:NCORP. Greenbörg (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and suffers from a severe lack of sourcing. Additional, the company is of limited notability and may qualify for WP:MILL.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks proper references. Mar11 (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A promotionally-worded article on a company. The provided references are poor and searches are not finding better. A company going about its business, but no evidence of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Octavius Black[edit]

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

Not notable. Article sources only discuss the companies he's worked for, not the man himself. Article is basically just a CV. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Has not had any discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relist final
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources are acceptable, they're not only about his companies.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] There are significant coverage. The article can be re-written and it's not a reason for deletion. There don't seem to be any copyvio too. — Za wl 18:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Movin' (Mohombi song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG, Did not chart. MassiveYR ♠ 05:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although it didn't chart, it's the lead single from an album from an international artist, Mohombi popular throughout the world for hit Bumpy Ride. Giangkiefer

Your reason "Did not chart" is not enough. Giangkiefer

@Giangkiefer:Popularity has nothing to do with notability.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giangkiefer You think it's not notability ?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Xtreme Talent Search[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference and links was added as page are continuing to be improved User talk:Thecrossingtvseries regarding User_talk:Thecrossingtvseries#Deletion_discussion_about_The_Xtreme_Talent_Search

(talk) 01:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The references need to be independent reliable sources in order to establish the competition's notability. Meatsgains (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have independent sources, but I assume we could add more. Would newspaper articles, press coverage and those be suitable? What else could we do?

No, the page's current sources are not independent or reliable. Yes, newspaper articles detailing the subject would definitely be reliable and you should added. Meatsgains (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 07:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relist final
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite attempts to add sources since nomination, IMDb, LinkedIn, and the show's website aren't acceptable. — Wylie pedia 05:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Development of non-profit housing in the United States. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-profit housing[edit]

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

Article is a dictionary definition, probably only used in the USA. With multiple better known alternative terms to describe this topic if it were expanded. A Guy into Books (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me we can simply redirect to Public housing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~public housing~~ Development of non-profit housing in the United States (per EMG). Shawn in Montreal is on to the correct solution, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect term to Development of non-profit housing in the United States, User:Shawn in Montreal, User:Carrite, User:Aguyintobooks, I think this is a better, more accurate, and more useful redirect target for this American Term-of-art and probable search term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominated article has no US-specific content, even if the title is apparently the American term. But yes I suppose your suggestion is equally valid. I'd still prefer that it redirect to the top level article, which does contain a section on the US, but if you or someone else went ahead and non-admin closed this as a redirect to your preferred target I'd have no objection. This really doesn't require an Afd from what I can see -- certainly not one that's now been relisted twice and is 21 days old, all for a redirect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 18:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Killuminati 2K10[edit]

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

If we're going to be dropping a mixtape on Wikipedia, it needs reliable sources like any album, EP, or single would. A WP:BEFORE search shows us listings in online stores, hardly an indicator of passing WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Rosas[edit]

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

Does not meet musical notability. No independent references in articles, and no independent coverage found on Google search. Also contains non-neutral language; that can be dealt with, but there are still notability issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Japan (Aftershock album)[edit]

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

A live album that was not covered in any reliable sources. By the looks of it, none of the band's albums, or the group for that matter, are particularly notable. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was a run of 500 CD-Rs, so would just have been snapped up by fans with little or no wider impact, and no coverage was found from a Google search. The title would not be an appropriate redirect. --Michig (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 02:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maragathakkaadu[edit]

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

unreleased movie with no significant pre-publicity; fails WP:NFILM Chetsford (talk) 02:57, 3 September 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 September 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like many Indian films, the creator does not provide the name of the film in its actual original writing system, and a transliterator that I used failed to transliterate the name properly. Two pages of results on Google, with nothing there being of significance. Too soon, maybe, since it has not been released. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 08:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is literally no content here, just the words "coming soon". This should not be on WP Mainspace. BSOleader (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as toosoon. BSOleader was looking at a revision of the article that had been blanked by the article creator, so it could possibly also go via {{Db-blanked}}. I undid the blanking, but whatever... DMacks (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Alvord[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Promotional article, part of a trio of articles created by this SPA on this company. See Funded Today and Zach Smith. MB 02:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree that subject doesn't meet WP:GNG, and that creator of article (User:Munozmayo) appears to be a WP:SPA to promote Funded Today and its leadership. See WP:PROMOTION. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Note that the other two closely related articles by this WP:SPA were deleted yesterday, for reasons identical to those proposed here, based on similar (but more thorough) discussions and consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funded Today‎ and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zach Smith. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Seems to me that there's so little discussion because it's not needed: this is now a fairly uncontroversial delete, uncontested, and consensus already exists. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC) rev. 12:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be a little WP:TOOSOON, i.e., there is coverage, but not profiles and coverage is in minor publications and some of the linked articles are brief menitons. Nor are any of his companies bluelinked.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Necro (EP)[edit]

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

Absolutely no significant coverage, at least not in my WP:BEFORE search. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:NALBUM & no sources present or found. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Widespread Panic discography. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson, WY '96[edit]

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

Another archival album sourced entirely by Widespread Panic's own website. Certainly fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. This isn't a particularly well-known album nor is it a likely search term so redirecting the page is unnecessary. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Widespread Panic discography, which has some content about the album. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Life of Boris[edit]

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

Not a particularly notable Youtube personality, with only 800,000 subscribers. Not many third-party sources, with references consisting of Youtube videos. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 14:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zhangj1079: Have you done a Google search? [14] [15] [16] These are some which do not feature in the article yet, because I have been equally busy and lazy. For me, it's a Keep. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 14:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: My name is not dave (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Comment - WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is a discouraged argument in deletion discussions. You should instead say why the sources are reliable or significant, the ones you mention either appear to be unreliable, or not significant._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG, the number of subscribers is irrelevant, he could have 25 subs and still be notable, what matters is at least three independent third party sources. [[17]], [[18]], [[19]], [[20]], [[21]], [[22]], [[23]], etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguyintobooks (talk • contribs)

Comment - False, that is an incorrect reading of the notability policy. It doesn't matter whether there are 3+ sources (although that is preferred as a "soft" guideline), but what really matters is whether they are reliable and significant secondary sources. The links you posted don't appear reliable. For example, the stated goal of "Slavorum" on their website is to promote Slavic culture, in other words it's more promotion than journalism. Calvert Journal does seem more journalistic but it's not actually a significant reference, only a passing mention. Et cetera._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: Indeed some of the sources that Aguyintobooks has included are not inadequate. What do you think about the one in Estonian? Seems to be a notable Estonian web magazine; if you are using Google Chrome, then it's very easy to use Google Translate and find out what everything means in English. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 15:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@My name is not dave:If you mean this one then it doesn't seem significant. It essentially just says "check this video out, it's funny!" Not exactly enough to go on without original research._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: No, I mean this. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 16:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@My name is not dave:It doesn't allow me to access it, because I use Adblock. For the security of my computer I therefore cannot vouch for whether it's reliable. Even assuming it is, there'd have to be a couple more usable sources for it to be notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not convinced based on the provided sources or the ones in the article, that the article passes WP:GNG. One of them is an interview, which would be WP:PRIMARY and the others are either unreliable sources or short mentions. Maybe there might be enough if I was fluent in Russian, but absent of that the English sources are inadequate._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

none of the stuff in russian is any better, its all of a likeness, 'sensationalism' type news and passing mentions. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on the English and Estonian sources (and comments above describing the content of the Russian sources), there's not a GNG-pass in there yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am umimpressed with the reliability of the batch of sources above, some of which are repeated in this GNews search with a total of 21 hits. This person/channel appears to fail the WP:GNG. Delete. --Izno (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has been a harsh lesson on notability, and more to the point, biased thinking to believe that some of these sources are reliable because I want to keep the article. Of course I do, that's completely to have and further my own interests. But no, there's the Estonian publik.delfi.ee source, which I stand by as being a good one, but not much else that's RS. Dear me, don't dig up crappy sources because you just want this article to be on Wikipedia. He's WP:TOOSOON. 81.106.34.193 (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC) (User:My name is not dave, who has imposed an enforced wikibreak on his account 'til Oct. 21)[reply]
Delete This article contains sources which do not have significant coverage, but only brief mentions about the subject. There is also a problem that some of the sources are unreliable. Fails WP:GNG. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reliable sources confirm the channel is popular but that's about it. There's nothing in the article suggesting this is a encyclopedic topic, and there's no significant coverage on which to base an article. --Michig (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jeff Schmidt (writer). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disciplined Minds[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The book itself isn't notable; whatever press notice it had is tied to the circumstances of its writing, which are covered in the author's (stub) entry. TheWhangdepootenawah (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment from the nominator) This is a stub article that's stayed a stub article for ten years now. It's so obscure a book that apparently nobody even wants to discuss whether its entry should be deleted. Isn't it time to just put it out of its misery? TheWhangdepootenawah (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with author's page, Jeff_Schmidt_(writer). Gpc62 (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Merge makes a lot more sense, given that the material in the entry is almost all biographical anyway. TheWhangdepootenawah (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Half is about the book, half about the firing controversy. So "almost all" is a bit of an exaggeration. It occurs to me I should have included a reason with my Keep/Merge opinion. My view is that this case boils down to a subjective judgement call -- the book is in a gray area, not obviously (objectively) on the "delete" side of the line by. And my subjective judgement is that a description of the book should be kept in the encyclopedia. The comment "nobody even wants to discuss whether its entry should be deleted" should be rephrased as "nobody among the tiny class of people who are active on wikipedia and who participate in AfD discussions wants to discuss whether its entry should be deleted." Gpc62 (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Program_and_System_Information_Protocol#What_PSIP_does. Whoever does the merge should decide how much material should be merged. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Programming Metadata Communication Protocol[edit]

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

I couldn't verify that this meets WP:NOTABILITY, but using AfD rather than prod as it's outwith my area of expertise. IT has beent agged for notability for 9 years, no convincing sources in article or that I found. Boleyn (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Power~enwiki (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as a section of Program_and_System_Information_Protocol#What_PSIP_does, where it is mentioned. This is an ATSC standard for North American digital TV. This is the standard for encoding program listings for PSIP. It appears in National Association of Broadcasters Engineering Handbook, a standard reference. It is obviously verifiable and the standard itself, a consensus document among manufacturers, is a reliable, authoritative source for the standard. The content is verifiable, but there isn't a lot of outside commentary out there; it is part of the DTV plumbing. I don't know if there is enough out there to make for WP notability, but as an important part of PSIP, merging it in context in the PSIP article will preserve verifiable material per WP:PRESERVE and enrich the article. --Mark viking (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Program and System Information Protocol § What PSIP does, which will improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 18:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jyväskylä Sinfonia[edit]

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

Might fail WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Sources may be available in written in the Finnish language. Has been tagged for improvement for 8 years. A Guy into Books (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Robotranslation of fi-wiki version lists claims against at least NMUSIC #3 (platinum albums) and #5 (multiple albums by major publishers), supported by Allmusic[24] and the Association of Finnish Symphony Orchestras[25]. Also appears to be known as the "Sinfonia Finlandia Jyväskylä"[26] and "Sinfonia Finlandia"[27] -- but not the "Finlandia Sinfonietta"[28]. Not much in the way of reviews readily visible from Google / GBooks, but at least some of their releases appear to have significant RS coverage[29][30]. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we do not do articles on organizations built on their own websites.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added a number of sources. Mr. Magoo (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- a professional orchestra with a number of noted recordings. The article has been sufficiently improved in the course of this AfD for me to iVote as "Keep". An acceptable stub at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently notable. No real argument put forward for deletion. --Michig (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is sufficiently sourced, and passes GNG. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I rm the templates because this afd appears to settle issues of notability, and there are sufficient sources now ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus to delete the article has emerged. Malinaccier (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ExtenZe[edit]

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

This seems to be a WP:PROMO article. There is a lack of reliable or independent sources that are not trivial. The contents of the article are (IMHO) not encyclopedic and have no other purpose than to advertise the product as "rarely having side effects" and listing the corporate endorsements it has. Nicnote^{say hello!}_contribs 11:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it appears that we're having a longer AfD discussion here. Wikipedia is not a product directory, and I don't think this is notable as a medical treatment. However, they have run a very large number of commercial advertisements in the United States. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There is some coverage of the brand, ex. [31], [32], [33], [http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/25/local/me-extenze25. through this is borderline and most coverage seems to be critical (which is good since it would lessen the ad-like outlook of this). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 18:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Massari Arena[edit]

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

This sports arena does not seem to claim any notability in its own right. Event(s) happening in the arena don't give inherent notability. A Guy into Books (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom Comment. This could all be merged with other articles mentioned in the article. A Guy into Books (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not just the arena of a university, it also hosts boxing events and more. "Google news" shows lots of mentions, as the venue of events, and I think it is useful for Wikipedia to serve as reference for readers' "what is Massari Arena?" question. There probably are sources specifically about the construction of the building from around 1971 (pre-internet) and its reconstruction around 2006 but i am not going to go look for them; I think there's enough already to presume that GNG is met by sources not yet identified. --do ncr am 20:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, i just added mention of Vincent Massari (1898-1976), the Italian immigrant after whom the arena is (apparently) named. Massari himself seems notable, see e.g. this brief source. --do ncr am 20:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant enough venue, hosting major events. --Michig (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Gill (cox)[edit]

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

Possible hoax or attack page based on page creators edits. Bamyers99 (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are extensive personal details here that are uncited. I don't believe that Gill meets the WP:GNG. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. No indication of notablity whatsoever and creator User:Garryhill36 has a username meticulously similar to Harry Gill. Ajf773 (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while there are 11th graders who are notable, it is almost always in acting or music, or truly notable sports competition, not rowing at the level he does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boomer Phillips[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of an actor and comedian, with no strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR and no strong reliable source coverage to support it. The references here are his IMDb profile, a tv.com profile which is not a reliable source for the same reason that IMDb isn't, and his own MySpace page. These are not reliable sources that can support notability, and actors do not get an automatic notability freebie just because roles happen to be listed — to qualify for an article, he needs to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to verify that he passes an NACTOR criterion. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cool that he got to accomplish his dream to be a firefighter but not notable..or sourced. Most of the article isn't sourced, and it's all unnotable. Myspace and imdb are not reliable sources. I can't imagine tv.com is either. Sorry Boomer. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J. J. McCullough[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a journalist and cartoonist, with no properly sourced indication of passing WP:CREATIVE. This just states that he exists and then shares some of his opinions on things, and seven of the nine references are to either directories or individual samples of his own writing, while one more is to his own self-published Twitter feed — and the one that actually represents a reliable source isn't about him, but merely includes him giving a brief soundbite about a different subject. As always, a person does not get a Wikipedia article by being the bylined author of the sources, or by being glancingly namechecked as a soundbite giver in coverage of other things -- he has to be the subject of coverage written by other people, but he isn't. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment that I was considering bringing this here too and then thought that his work for the influential Washington Post as a conservative voice might qualify him for the first part of criterion #1 in WP:JOURNALIST. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If his work for the Washington Post were the subject of coverage in other publications, then sure. Not if the only reference given for it is a primary source directory of his writing for the Washington Post, though. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess I was wondering if the phrase "is regarded" can encompass more than "is discussed by." At any rate, certainly not opposing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He's written for many influential publishers and has appeared regularly as a conservative commentator on Canadian TV for half a decade. He's also just launched 'TheCanadaGuide.com' which has been used a source on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VivaSlava (talk • contribs) 04:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly none of which is an automatic notability freebie in the absence of any reliable source coverage about him. People get Wikipedia articles by being the subject of media coverage written by other people, not by being the creator of media coverage of other things. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete with no prejudice against recreation at some future point, relatively early-career writer/political pundit. He does get written about by others, just not quite enough WP:SIGCOV at this point. Looks likely that it is just a little WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Zanotti (author)[edit]

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

Improperly sourced biography of a writer, whose strongest claim of notability per WP:AUTHOR is that he and his work existed. The only references cited here at all are the Google Books directory profiles of four of his books -- but since nearly every book that exists at all is going to have one of those, they do not count as evidence of notability in and of themselves any more than having a sales profile on amazon.com would. There's no reliable source coverage about him in media present to support any of the biographical content at all, but that's the kind of sourcing we would need to see before we could keep this. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Will try to establish source for this article. Zazzysa (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches are finding some blog posts etc. and a couple of passing name checks in books but nothing that can sustain an article as a reliable source. Happy to reconsider if Zazzysa locates anything as mentioned above, but as it stands this fails WP:AUTHOR. AllyD (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Girish Khatiwada[edit]

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

Not notable vlogger Legacypac (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one of the first hip hop artists in Nepal in the duo GP (which is suggested as a search term) according to this reliable source here Atlantic306 (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: with the greatest respect to Atlantic306, I think their !vote fundamentally mistakes what notability is. Being the first to do something in itself confers no notability. For example, "Bob was one of the first opera singers in Iceland" is a similar statement (assume it is backed up with one reliable source) doesn't make Bob notable in the slightest. Often, being the first person to do something will elicit media coverage which does confer notability. However, there simply aren't enough reliable sources that give significant coverage to suggest that is the case here. Khatiwada appears to have had little impact on his field of music and fails musician notability standards. The source Atlantic306 provided covers the duo of which he is a part. Maybe that duo would pass band notability standards but as a standalone article, it's a delete from me. DrStrauss talk 16:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I meant he has received sig coverage partly because he was jointly with his co - rapper the first hip hop artist in Nepal and therefore passes WP:GNG, another source here and this one here both describe him as a music pioneer in Nepal so he does have a significant effect on his field and passes WP:NMUSIC. Having an article on the duo would be a good alternative to this article if it goes. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage does not rise to the level required to pass the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Haven[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to an interview, the subject's web site, and industry promotional materials, none of which are suitable for establishing notability. The award category listed -- F.A.M.E. Award (Favorite Underrated Star) -- is not significant and well known, thus not meeting WP:PORNBIO either. The article was kept at AfD in 2007, but since then the community standards for BLPs have tightened significantly. I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO as the nominator states. Lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources to pass GNG. The main sources of the article are primary and self-published. Independent searches get incidental coverage by the likes of TMZ, mostly concerning an incident with War Machine. Others come from the subject claims of involvement with a football player, mostly based about what the subject says about herself in a TMZ article. One Spanish-language news article credits Wikipedia as its source. GNews hits are available, but they are of low quality. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to userspace. I've marked the resulting redirect for R2. WP:NPASR if it's returned to mainspace. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 21:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Khan (Youtuber)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails to meet basic WP:GNG Saqib (talk) 05:32, 17 September 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 September 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced promo piece. PRehse (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete as he fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Article was nominated twice. An active debate is open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usman Khan (Youtuber) (2nd nomination). (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Khan (Youtuber)[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Saqib (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 All Star Videoke. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of All Star Videoke episodes[edit]

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

TV episode list for a show with only 2 episodes so far. Too soon. Wgolf (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't normally keep episode lists for game shows regardless of length, but you could have dealt with this just through redirection. See WP:ATD. AFD should almost never be used for dealing with splits of subtopics, and really should never be used in such circumstances without first attempting resolution or development through normal editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah I didn't think of that till after I posted this of course, I also put a prod on a similar article by the creator of it btw. Well you can vote for redirect if you want. (I wasn't sure though if this would be a delete or redirect at first I will admit) Wgolf (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirection would have been an easy way to resolve it without all this AFD process. While we're here, however, as the main page for a game show also should not list all of its episodes, a good argument could be made for outright deletion if a redirect would be useless or even inaccurate. postdlf (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well the page I put a prod for was List of super ma'am episodes, which turned into a redirect for the same article, not sure what tag to put for the new article. Wgolf (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that article is List of Super Ma'am episodes, so if someone wants to start a discussion for that-since the prod was removed on the original article that turned into a redirect into that! Wgolf (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't, just merge/redirect it to the main article for the series, which as a dramatic series would be expected to list episodes and then eventually WP:SPLIT to a separate list once the size merited it. postdlf (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All Star Videoke. Ajf773 (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amai Liu[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Trivialist (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only claim of notability is millions of views on a porn site. No claim of passing WP:PORNBIO. No independent reliable sources cited or found in search to support WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks any references to reliable sources, thus failing our core content policy of verifiability. No evidence is offered that she meets our General notability guideline, and none that she meet WP:PORNBIO, which I consider too lenient, but at least creates the basis for a real debate. Biographies of living people have stringent standards, which this article fails. This person exists, performs in adult videos, but is not now a notable person. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately. Although I am fan of her, she fails to meet general notability criteria because of lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, and WP:PORNBIO because she hasnt won notable awards. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy delete under WP:A7. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see any assertion of importance or significance. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A7 - No importance or credible significance. –Davey2010^Talk 12:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: she is notable enough to be exluded from A7. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - She isn't notable enough at all. A7 IMHO still applies. –Davey2010^Talk 09:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable references whatsoever, fails notability guidelines. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 04:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. This run of the mill porn bio is noteworthy only for the lack of a glossy photograph, which most of the crap of this nature is built around. Carrite (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 02:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Project for Public Spaces[edit]

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

non-notable CelenaSkaggs (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see a lot of sources in gnews. LibStar (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The "Town and Country Planning" article that I added as a reference says this organisation "enjoys an international reputation for its work on the design and management of public space". There is also a discussion in a book on "Urban Open Space" and other coverage (via Highbeam) includes from Buffalo [34], Orlando [35], Pittsburgh [36], Milwaukee [37]. I think there is enough overall for WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Massive amount of WP:SIGCOV over many years in the local paper, search here: [38],) but even if it is the local paper, the New York Times is a WP:RS. Just needs a better article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll be serious now, this is a notable city planning organization that has had an ongoing impact on NYC over the course of several decades, plus it publishes widely cited books and reports on issues in city planning, and the projects it has implemented in New York are widely cited as models useful in design of other cities. Note that this is a good-faith nomination by an editor who seems to have failed to run a proper WP:BEFORE search, in Nom's defense, article is poorly sourced and far too brief. Had we but editors enough, and time.....E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Odoo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete Entirely and hopelessly promotional, fails WP:SPIP, WP:PROMO. Most references are PRIMARY and fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Even assuming the topic may be notable, it would require a rewrite. This is the third nomination but the article has not been improved. Most importantly, intellectual references from secondary sources and an encyclopedic and not promotionally toned article are required. Previous AfD Keep !votes commented on facts about number of installations, etc, but failed to produce references that meet the criteria for notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix the issues by editing. It's obviously notable. --Michig (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All very well, but it has been tagged since Feb 2017 and fails WP:PROMO. Even if a topic is notable, it doesn't get a pass on the other policies. If someone with some knowledge of the topic takes the editorial axe to the article and whips it into shape, I'll happily withdraw the nomination. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - This version was neutral and reasonably well sourced. Someone coming along later and adding a load of promotional content is a reason for reverting, not deletion. --Michig (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and clean up, it's not a company so WP:NCORP doesn't apply here. As a piece of software it just about passes WP:GNG. I agree that it is largely sourced to primary sources and such things as prices should definitely be removed. Sionk (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing here exceptional, just another piece of run-of-the-mill software. The sources are in their majority primary and self-published. If this is notable, the article is making a poor show of demonstrating this. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an obvious keep with revisions to me. My business uses the open-source Odoo 8.0 as our ERP software, and I just went to this page to find out what underlying languages were used to develop it. I found the answer (Python), so this article helped me and has utility. Odoo competes head-on with Microsoft Dynamics, etc., and there is nothing else like it that is open-source. I agree that the article reads like a sales pitch and needs to be revised. Sorry if my comment here isn't added and/or formatted and/or phrased correctly; I rarely comment on wikipedia. However, I do donate every month! MrKit2u (talk) 8:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Gesundheit. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to sneezing[edit]

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

Almost entirely uncited, and some of the listed responses seem unlikely. It's an amusing page, for sure, but not verifiable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Largely uncited since 2009. Citogenesis waiting to happen. Gamaliel (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be trivial. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete. Very enjoyable page, causing no harm to anyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.102.29 (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per countless readily available sources such as [39], [40], [41] and [42]. Of course the article, like millions of others, needs improvement, but that is not a reason to delete it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per readily available sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess the thing to do is remove all unsourced items as possible hoaxes (per User:Gamaliel). That would leave us with English, Icelandic, German, and the first line of the lede. The non-list content is already too weak for an article, so I'm leaning toward Delete. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second of the books that I linked above is an academic work that lists the responses in a dozen or so languages, and that's just one of the sources that I found in a few seconds. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think notability factors in at all here; this is clearly a sub-page of sneeze. The "List of responses in other languages" table may be better suited for some other wiki (Wiktionary?) but I don't have any specific proposal that I think is an improvement. I agree there's a case to delete by WP:TNT to ensure all the content is sourced properly. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that this is a sub-page of sneeze. Most reliable sources, such as those that I listed above, seem to cover this in the context of language and culture rather than of sneezing. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We don't delete ~~stuff~~ articles just because at present they happen to be unsourced. The topic is clearly notable, and if there are issues with any specific entries, it will be a trivial task to verify them against a dictionary. Mention of the topic can of course be made at Sneeze but the list is too long to be merged there. – Uanfala 06:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of sources available that can verify this article's contents (see, e.g., this and this). The solution is to add references, not delete. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I just looked this page up to find out about ways to say bless you in other languages. It definitely serves a purpose, and I certainly think the information CAN be sourced. Unsourced info can be challenged and removed, obviously, but there is no reason to delete the page, as the topic is something that people wonder about, and further there is enough info to have a standalone article apart from the Sneezing page. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Gebara[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable enough. Would be glad to see evidence to the contrary. Nerd1a4i (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Clearly fails WP:ACTOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FSOJM791 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tim Yap. MBisanz ^talk 18:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Tim Yap Show[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. Nerd1a4i (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redicect to Tim Yap, no sources could be found. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there just found source at the top of an article just saw premiered. Oripaypaykim (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tim Yap. No need to have a separate article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although not notable in USA or India it seems notable in the Philippines from provided sources. Article needs destubation.--INDIAN REVERTER (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment INDIAN REVERTER is a ~~new~~ blocked account whose posting history is almost entirely "Keep" submissions to AfDs. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 23:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ambarish Mitra[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page consists pretty heavily of promotional-like material and has had NPOV problems since 2015, if not earlier. It also seems one of the major contributors likely has COI issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Joannamk Brian-armstrong (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly promotional article on a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MDaemon[edit]

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

Article is mostly promotional in content and appears to contain little encyclopedic content. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: MDaemon is a notable product, promotional content can be rephrased or removed. --Zac67 (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just commercial promotional blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Reviews mentioned in the further reading section. There are more (eg. InfoWorld, 24 April 2000, p. 66). However, I agree the article is in a terrible state, most informations are referenced by the company webpage - TNT is the way to go... and start anew. I would delete anything other than lead, Early history and Version History (well, maybe this one too... there should be at least references to available reviews). Pavlor (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not notable and basically reaches criteria for speedy deletion. A7 and G11 policies support deletion of this article (Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion). FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FockeWulf FW 190: As of miserable article content, I just removed most of corpcruft and my intention is to rewrite the article (there is plenty of RS for that purpose). ~~Note your delete "vote" is already included in your nomination. Please change this to "comment".~~ Pavlor (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks. Pavlor (talk) 11:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MILL, as nothing indicates to me why Wikipedia requires this article if similar ones exist. Potentially fails WP:PRODUCT as well.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline Interactive[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, I couldn't find significant mentions of them as a studio. PROD was removed so that or redirect wasn't an option. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:NCORP. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stray Cat Crossing[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, while there are reliable sources, they are only several release announcements and therefore fail WP:SUSTAINED. There are no real reviews to speak of. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails both WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hispanic neighborhoods[edit]

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

Completely unsourced and this looks like a directory, an example of WP:NOT jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR, as well as being an indiscriminate list. Ajf773 (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although this article has been around for eight years, it apparently has never had a source (or at least not in the selected edits I reviewed). The introduction to the list says, and apparently has always said, "These are a list of neighborhoods with a majority Hispanic population, the demographic information is the article is based on the demographics offered by . [sic] The population of each neighborhood on the list is 50%+ Hispanic. Note: The references for this article are found within . [sic] It clearly states a Hispanic population of above 50% for each neighborhood on the list." The source that the article supposedly uses was never identified, and the article creator only left a blank space to identify it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. An un-maintainable list. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do no neighbourhoods in the Spanish-speaking countries of Latin America or, for that matter, Spain have over 50% Hispanic populations? I would have thought that nearly all of them do. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify that comment for those who might have difficulty "reading between the lines", a list of Hispanic neighbourhoods as described by the title and the lead section of the article would be absurdly long, including nearly all neighbourhoods in quite a few countries. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, the authors of this article only decided to include neighborhoods in the United States. While it is possible to include other countries, the lack of sources is the main issue here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the lack of sources. All references were pulled from within each article as the note was trying to say. Articles without explicit references marking it as >50% Hispanic have been marked as disputed (dubious might have been better, but I only remembered the word now). The question now is, does this expand upon List of U.S. communities with Hispanic-majority populations in the 2010 census, which already exists? As a few locations (South Gate, Fruitvale, East Palo Alto) are sourced and aren't on the larger list, deletion is probably not warranted, but a tentative merge might be. menaechmi (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article was obviously supposed to be about communities in the United States, but the creator and subsequent editors, for some inexplicable reason, didn't even mention the United States in the title or the text. Menaechmi has shown that we have a properly titled and properly scoped article about Hispanic majority communities in the United States (which may or may not be notable - I haven't checked), and this title should not be a redirect because it doesn't mention the United States, which is obviously needed. We don't have some default point of view that every article is about the United States unless stated otherwise. Adding entries from this uncopyrightable list to List of U.S. communities with Hispanic-majority populations in the 2010 census doesn't require us to keep the history of this article for attribution purposes. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - call it OR or a violation of NOTDIRECTORY, your choice. Carrite (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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