Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 September	23 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 delete and redirect to Shadow Fight 2. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow fight 3[edit]

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

Non-notable video game, lacks reviews, fails WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No third party sources to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shadow Fight 2. There are a number of release announcements indicating it exists, meaning it is a likely search term, so it meets the bar for a redirect. --Izno (talk) 13:15, 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, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zibad Rheum[edit]

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

Not enough context to tell what this article is about. Most of the content pertains to the genus Rheum. Lead suggests it's a particular species endemic to Iran; source at [1] talks about something that Google translates as rhubarb (although if it's a wild species, I suspect it may be Rheum ribes). At any rate, this article seems to be a fork of one of our other Rheum related articles, but I can't tell which one. Plantdrew (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I am unable to find any sources that support the existence of this particular "species" of the genus. I recommend leaving a query on the talk page of the main article and/or the relevant WikiProject - or simply a notification of the AfD on those talk pages ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:56, 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) 23:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:31, 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) 23:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The existence of this plant is not known, as it is not verifiable through reliable sources. Thus, this article should be deleted. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 16:22, 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. Euryalus (talk) 07:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neelansh Koshta[edit]

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

Unnotable taekwondo practitioner did not compete at the highest level. Medalling at some obscure off the grid tournament has no effect. The article had been deleted and recreated in various forms previously.PRehse (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)6[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 1 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) 20:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is routine sports reporting and his accomplishments do not meet WP:MANOTE or WP:NSPORTS. He is not listed among the 36,000+ fighters at taekwondodata.com and the World Taekwondo Federation doesn't have a men's 70 kg division. As far as his win in a minor tournament's 74 kg division goes, the WTF does recognize that division, but he's not among the 823 competitors ranked by the WTF in that division. He has never competed at a major event. Papaursa (talk) 23:08, 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) 20:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet notability under WP:NSPORTS. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for martial artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 27 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) 14:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Barrie[edit]

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

Appears to be a self-penned CV of a "social entrepreneur", accompanied by a verbose list of projects that he's allegedly been part of in (often) some vague and unsubstantiated way. I can't find anything of substance about Barrie online. The occasional news article only mentions his name very briefly. Time for it to go, fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It appears that the subject is a UK Councillor but fails WP:NPOL. The problem is that there really is little information there out there about him other than passing mentions, like a recent YMCA project in his town. Also doesn't help that most edits to the article were done by: User:Mrdavidbarrie. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:30, 9 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) 20:14, 15 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) 23:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep While he doesn't meet WP:NPOL, he might slide in under WP:DIRECTOR. According to his listing on IMDB, he has 16 director credits, including When Steptoe Met Son, an episode of The Dark Side of Porn, and an episode of Monarchy (TV series), along with several BBC documentaries, some of which sound like they could be notable although they don't have WP articles. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. It does read more like a self-penned Linkedin CV rather than an encyclopaedic entry for someone peer-reviewed and widely discussed in independent sources. As it stands, the subject fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:FILMMAKER Pupsbunch (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DPnom. Fails GNG. Only mentions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:05, 30 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, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G. M. Felix[edit]

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

Just a regular poet. He hasn't recieved in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though he's clearly been on this Earth for a long time and published some stuff, there is no suggestion here he's won awards or had any recognition. If he'd "well known" by his other name Qasir Amritsari, there's zero proof of this online. If there was any hint of pre-internet success I'd hesitate to vote 'delete', but the prognosis doesn't look good here. Sionk (talk) 20:13, 8 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) 20:10, 15 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) 23:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication he is actually a notable poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hamilton (economist)[edit]

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

Notability is not established. The only source is not independent of the subject. Does not meet WP:BIO RetiredDuke (talk) 15:45, 8 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) 20:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He was a lecturer, not a professor, at the University of Georgia after leaving Kodak. I can't find any independent sources on his role at Kodak, only brief mentions from press announcements. Does not meet academic or business people requirements. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:15, 21 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) 23:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourced by 1 broken link. No prejudice to re-creating if real RS can be found. Agricola44 (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a run of the mill businessman and business professor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 26 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Turkic alphabet[edit]

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

WP:CFORK and WP:POVFORK of Azerbaijani alphabet. Every thing is copy-pasted from the Azerbaijani alphabet. the lead, sources, external links and etc. And the name of article is WP:OR, WP:POV, meaningless and unscientific. Turkic is a language family and not a specific language. What is this so-called "Iranian Turkic"? Google it and google brings this wiki page and its copies on other websites. This article should be deleted and if it has any useful content, they should be used on the main article. Wario-Man (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nominator. Pure bogus. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:42, 8 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) 20:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wario-Man said it all. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  22:21, 22 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) 23:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be a hoax, with no reliable sources supporting the existence of such an alphabet. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 02:21, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Nude Pube Banglers[edit]

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

A non-notable band. No reliable sources that give significant coverage and no indication that they've had an impact on their field of music. Also fails general notability guideline. DrStrauss talk 11:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an underground band. Geschichte (talk) 08:21, 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) 20:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What does being an "underground" band to do with anything? Do they meet notability for musical groups or not, is the only question, nothing else. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:04, 19 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) 23:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definetly underground, as they fail the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:03, 30 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} 16:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Trails[edit]

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

It would appear to me that there may well be article subjects that would pass the tests for notability that could be called "Hollywood Trails", perhaps about bicycle or hiking paths in Hollywood (the place in LA) or perhaps one about frequently followed tourism routes in Hollywood (more generally speaking with the meaning the Cinema of the United States.

This article is not about these topics. It is about a business venture called "Hollywood Trails: Eco-Adventure Kewl Bicycle Tours". It was moved to its current title on April 23 2009.

I note that the article was initially created December 6, 2008 as an article about an astrologer.

In its current state, its references - such as they are - are two BlogSpot websites. As self-published sources, they cannot assist the article's claim to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

I would argue that this article fails the WP:CORP test. Shirt58 (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bike tours of Hollywood, Florida, (and 99.9999% of other places) don't generate a lot of media interest. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:04, 9 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) 20:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 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) 23:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable in current form. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:04, 30 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boxifier[edit]

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

Prod contested by article creator so here we are. Fails WP:NPRODUCT with no third-party sources given. shoy (reactions) 13:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not satisfy software notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

shoy, Boxifier targets a niche, but it is used by people around the world. Here is an article on a reputable blog ^[1] that mentions the fact that this product helps researchers to find cures for neurological disorders - www.goo.gl/1wL5u3. I created this page because Boxifier is a mature product with history and results, not some new entry looking for attention. The reason for creating the page is that it is listed in a comparison table with several other products and it is the only one with a missing page. If you don't feel this should be on Wikipedia, that's fine. I just thought it is helpful, because it is used by so many people each day. (User talk:Andreeaken 08:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Unfortunately, that's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and some of those articles might very well fail WP:NPRODUCT also. Every article has to stand on its own merits by providing in-depth coverage in WP:RS. I would suggest that you could merge the information into the article of the software company, but they don't have an article either. shoy (reactions) 14:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would creating an article of the software company in which I could merge this information be flagged as WP:NCOMPANY and the same notability reasons invoked before proposing it for deletion? Ultimately, if this Wikipedia article existing would personally cause you or anyone else trouble then it is just better for it to be deleted. I guess the other articles that clearly fail WP:NPRODUCT were just lucky to not be deleted. (User talk:Andreeaken 31 August 2017 (UTC))

It depends on how notable the company is. Based on what I can find online, they barely have a website, much less coverage in reliable sources. Also, if you feel that other pages fail WP:NPRODUCT, feel free to propose them for deletion. shoy (reactions) 20:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:24, 8 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) 20:03, 15 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) 23:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the GNG and it odesn't have the amount of mentions in lists that I personally would prefer to exist. OSE is not policy. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:10, 30 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 Nancy Ajram. Redirects are cheap.(non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Jerash Festival 2004[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage in reliable sources. A redirect to the artist's discography was attempted per WP:ATD. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 8 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) 20:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 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) 23:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Besides confirming the its existence, there is no significant discussion of the album in RS. Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM: there is no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and therefore there isn't "enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography." —Ojorojo (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nancy Ajram per ATD. Ojorojo, is there a reason you prefer deletion over a redirect? Thanks,L3X1 (distænt write) 02:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, either is fine. As WBOG noted, redirects are cheap. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:55, 30 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 and redirect to Nancy Ajram discography. Black Kite (talk) 09:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

El Dounya Helwa – Live[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage in reliable sources. A redirect to the artist's discography was attempted per WP:ATD. Current sourcing us user-generated. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 8 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) 20:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 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) 23:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Same as Live at the Jerash Festival 2004 article – besides confirming the its existence, there is no significant discussion of the album in RS. Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM: there is no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and therefore there isn't "enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography." — Ojorojo (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet Wp:NALBUM. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nancy Ajram per other discussion. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:38, 30 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 Nancy Ajram videography. Redirects are cheap. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of Nancy Clips[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage in reliable sources. A redirect to the artist's discography was attempted per WP:ATD. Current sourcing us user-generated. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 8 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) 20:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Nancy Ajram~~ Nancy Ajram videography. A valid search term per WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that it would be better to redirect this page to Nancy Ajram videography. Could you please reevaluate where you want this targeted to? RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 18:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modified my !vote. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 29 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) 23:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nancy Ajram videography, as this seems to be one album in her videography. It should not be kept because it is not notable, with no real outside references from reliable sources that are significant. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 18:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Same as the live albums – besides confirming the its existence, there is no significant discussion of the album in RS. Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM: there is no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and therefore there isn't "enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography." —Ojorojo (talk) 15:53, 29 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, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awel Mara[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage in reliable sources. A redirect to the artist's discography was attempted per WP:ATD. Current sourcing us user-generated. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this doesn't pass WP:NALBUM. Maybe it can be added as a section in the article of the singer. Kagundu Talk To Me 09:08, 8 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) 20:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 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) 23:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable album.122.171.237.5 (talk) 05:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Besides confirming the its existence, there is no significant discussion of the album in RS. Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM: there is no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and therefore there isn't "enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography." —Ojorojo (talk) 15:56, 29 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 Nancy Ajram. The redirection may be re-evaluated if reliable sources in Arabic are forthcoming. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Ajram: Greatest Hits[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage in reliable sources. A redirect to the artist's discography was attempted per WP:ATD. Current sourcing us user-generated. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nancy Ajram is one of the most well known singers in the Arab world. She has an international audience, similar to many kpop groups today. I would like to search for more sources. If this is an official greatest hits album, I am pretty sure there will be sources in Arabic.--DreamLinker (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any help is appreciated. I used to listen to many of these songs and I am pretty sure it is a notable album. Unfortunately I cannot read Arabic.--DreamLinker (talk) 11:14, 15 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) 20:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 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) 23:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Although she is very popular, her albums haven't received much written commentary – besides confirming the its existence, there is no significant discussion of the album in RS. Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM: there is no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and therefore there isn't "enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography." —Ojorojo (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her per other discussions. z'L3X1 (distænt write) 23:00, 30 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. Let's try to sort this out using regular editing, which may include merging, and if not, we can revisit the possibility of deletion at a later time. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  08:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bardon Park (Western Australia)[edit]

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

Non-notable park. Sure there's information on it but no actual proof of notability. Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability etc. — IVORK _Discuss 13:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched but could find no references suggesting that this is a recognized tourist attraction or otherwise more than an attractive but run of the mill city park in the Maylands neighborhood of Perth's Bayswater suburb. It's not even mentioned in our articles about Maylands and Bayswater, although some other parks are. As such, notability is not established under the guideline at WP:NGEO or otherwise. (Note: there's a more notable Bardon Park in Leicestershire.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Community group https://www.facebook.com/bardonpark/ User:stevenebsary —Preceding undated comment added 06:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC) As the Bardon Park area is significant to Noongar Culture and history with the natural springs in the wetlands also its links to Derbarl Yerrigan (Swan River) http://www.bom.gov.au/iwk/calendars/nyoongar.shtml#djilba[reply]

Section substituted in from User_talk:Stevenebsary#Sourcing_relevant_info — IVORK _Discuss 07:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day mate,
You are doing good work on the article in terms of getting it to conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. However unfortunately I do believe the deletion nomination I placed will succeed due to the fact it is just one run of the mill park of many across Perth. Wikipedia being an online encyclopedia can only include articles that are particularly note-worthy. Just because something exists does not automatically qualify it as such. The criteria for notability is laid out in WP:NGEO. If it is deleted, I hope you still have the desire to continue to contribute to Wikipedia. — IVORK _Discuss 06:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of sourcing relevant info on the park.User:Stevenebsary

It's not about information to prove it exists, I was a resident of Perth for 20 years, it's about proving that it is worthy of an article. That it is relevant to people outside of the local surrounds / city / state / country. — IVORK _Discuss 06:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://library.dbca.wa.gov.au/static/FullTextFiles/052287.003.pdf

Yep, again. This merely states it exists, not that it is particularly notable above any of the other parks that exist across the world. — IVORK _Discuss 07:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, a wildlife sanctuary is important. It has indigenous history https://parks.dpaw.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/downloads/parks/Indigenous%20history%20of%20the%20Swan%20and%20Canning%20rivers.pdf

I'm not sure 30 people camping there in the 1930-60s alone gives it relevance. This is the only mention of the park in the article. DPAW doesn't even list it on the "park finder" on their website, I'd say it'd be pretty hard to find an example of a park with a waterfront that isn't also "a wildlife sanctuary". There is however an article on the Swan River (Western Australia). — IVORK _Discuss 07:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous art installation https://facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=692968497568450&id=677400495791917

Tourist attraction park playground https://www.weekendnotes.com/bardon-park/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenebsary (talk • contribs) 08:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very reluctantly. There just does not seem to be anywhere near enough to establish notability at this time. It is mentioned in WA Parliamentary debate though. As much as I do not like to see the first article by a WP:NEWBIE get deleted, especially given that there seems to be so much good faith here, and having had such trouble myself when I first started, there just does not seem to be enough here for anything remotely core or in-depth or specific to the park. If the indigenous aspect can be built up, I might be convinced to change my mind. Aoziwe (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is the sv site version related here? This all started due to facebooks import from that source, causing incorrect data there for the place (well in the wrong language). Unfortunately facebook is terrible at places in many ways. Will that version still exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenebsary (talk • contribs) 13:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined not to encroach into foreign language Wikipedias. From what I can tell with the assistance of a translator extension, that article was created by an automated bot. Being that was the case, and no such thing for article creation exists on the English Wikipedia, what I know of their guidelines clearly isn't enough for me to propose deletion. Most foreign language Wikipedias act independently of one another, as even the guidelines after all are all just one big agreed-upon consensus between editors. I am not familiar with the history of that article or the bot that seemingly created it. — IVORK _Discuss 14:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The Swedish Wikipedia article mentioned above is at sv:Bardon Park (park i Australien, Western Australia). The same bot that created that article also created one for sv:Bardon Park (park i Australien, New South Wales). That's a real neighborhood park in Coogee, New South Wales [2], but I don't see anything in either of these Swedish articles that suggests that either of these parks is notable under English Wikipedia standards. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Maylands, Western Australia. There's really no need to delete all of this newbie's work.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, to revisit in six months or one year. Or at worst merge, possibly into Maylands, Western Australia. Or move to List of parks in Western Australia and develop. Quite small municipal/urban parks in the United States are "Kept" at AFD fairly frequently. Coverage of parks in Western Australia could be developed by creating a list-article, with a table row for each one. I note there is not a List of parks in Australia (currently a redlink) or even an international List of parks (currently a redlink), though there is a List of national parks and List of national parks in Australia. --do ncr am 17:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note there are sources about community involvement in the park, from relatively local news sources and blogs, but I think these add up and suffice. For example:

blog review/description of the park
I added that "Nearby residents concerned about the park incorporated the Bardon Park Riverside Restoration Group to address weeds in 2016. The park has been managed by the City of Bayswater since 2006." based on |title=Residents to tackle Bardon Park weeds themselves, of 11 October 2016
I added that: "A nature playground was developed for $175,000 and opened in March 2016. The playground features a rock garden which illustrates 'the six Noongar seasons of Birak - the first summer, Bunuru - the second summer, Djeran - autumn, Makuru - the first rains, Djilba - the second rains and Kambarang - flowering.'", based on the City of Bayswater's facebook posting about it: [3].

I think this stuff adds up. What is needed is some helpful development, not eradication of good faith new contributor's work. --do ncr am 17:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. we have normally kept all substantial city parks as geographic features, and the references are good enough for that. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, re sources discussed throughout this afd, a "Parks" section in the Maylands, Western Australia article would also be useful. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 14 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, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 22:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, I'm not sure that this is a "substantial city park", to quote DDG. If this were Central Park or Hyde Park then definitely, but I'm not convinced this is anything more than an ordinary suburban park, and none of the sources shown or arguments presented have convinced me otherwise. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep - This seems to have been covered in multiple reliable sources. Although there aren't too many, I think that there are enough to verify the contents of the article. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 20:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a small city park with no indication of notability. I was easily convinced by reading this from one of the sources in the article: "would have to be one of the prettiest, albeit least-known of our riverside parklands. Relatively small in size, ..." It has some grass, a playground, some picnic tables (as do thousands of others). Just a WP:MILL park. MB 02:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not sure this strictly meets GNG, but normally with geographical features we just need their existence to be proven, which in this article it has. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:06, 30 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 01:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diablogato[edit]

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

Unremarkable band, but the article does assert the importance or significance of the subject, so no (A7). I find 30 ghits, most not even related to the band, offering no significant coverage whatsoever; a few mentions here and there is all I can find. The two sources are unconvincing, as mere announcements. Mduvekot (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The band doesn't pass our notability criteria for music, as there are not enough reliable sources that discuss this band for at least a paragraph ([4] is an exception). RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 22:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just mentions. Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:07, 30 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, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Zachary[edit]

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

A bit too soon. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT. Trivial mention in the sources cited, except for here (a local entertainment publication) and here (an industry publication which looks like a press release). A Google search brought back the same sources and the same trivial mention. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable broadcast personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 01:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing notable. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:13, 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) 19:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Subramanian (COO Komprise)[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:NBIO. Sources are either blogs/user generated content (Forbes link), social networks or press releases, that do not support the claims in the article. I am unable to find any significant coverage of the subject of the article, however there are plenty of articles about Krishna Subramanian, a technological entrepreneur of the same name (but different gender, so definitely not the same person). PGWG (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I nominated the article on the firm for AfD, but missed this one. Neither he nor the firm have any indication of notability, and the simultaneous creation of the articles is good evidence that the contributor was an undeclared paid editor DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Effectively a CV page by a probably connected contributor. A sequence of jobs is described, and some in-role mentions relative to her current and a former company can be found, but nothing to indicate that the subject is of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete glorified CV, doesn't meet WP:GNG. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:26, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Video Clips 2[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage in reliable sources. A redirect to the artist's discography was attempted per WP:ATD. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no references and barely any content. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  08:43, 8 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) 20:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 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) 21:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Although she is very popular, her albums haven't received much written commentary – besides confirming the its existence, there is no significant discussion of the album in RS. Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM: there is no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and therefore there isn't "enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography." —Ojorojo (talk) 16:06, 29 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. WP:NPASR applies. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who (film)[edit]

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

See film notability guidelines. Unreleased films are only notable if production is notable, and this article does not indicate anything about production other than that it has started. Because production is not notable, the list is promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The release date as stated is December 6. So, it's informational rather than promotional. Dynamic80 (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:15, 8 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) 19:59, 15 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) 21:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

WP:INDAFD: Ajay Devaloka Shine Tom Chacko Shruthy Menon

Keep per a project which has begun filming and is receiving coverage to meet WP:NFF. IE: Times of India is in-depth SIGCOV. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:30, 29 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, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Magie[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Checking source & related sites shows nothing special. JamesG5 (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:39, 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) 19:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 33 G-hits for NAME + "composer" for this music professor and director. Let's call this one WP:TOOSOON. Carrite (talk) 01:29, 22 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) 21:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete conducting non-notable organizations, so he is not notable for conducting. Composing is also not at a notable level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 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) 19:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shamsun Nahar Khan[edit]

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

An associate professor of pharmaceutical science, whose name is on 35+ journal articles, although never as lead author. The most cited of those articles, according to Google Scholar, has been cited 72 times. Four have been cited at least 35 times each. In some fields that would be excellent, but is modest, I believe, for pharmaceutical chemistry. It's an order of magnitude below the citation figures for the lead authors on some of those articles, such as Atta-ur-Rahman (chemist)[5] and Muhammad Iqbal Choudhary [6]. Her list of scholarships, fellowships, and awards is better than none, but not highly prestigious.

The cited sources are the university where she teaches and a blog self-published by a third party (so not a reliable source for facts about her), plus two sources that appear irrelevant - they don't mention her. A relatively junior academic, who at this time does not meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Worldbruce (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. FITINDIA 03:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass WP:GNG. Altaf (talk) 09:01, 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) 14:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gettingtough – The Race[edit]

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

No sources and probably fails on WP:GNG Shaded0 (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:58, 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) 21:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find GNG-meeting coverage, reads like a business listing. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:07, 30 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, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Team Uttejit[edit]

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

Non-notable racing team. I haven't managed to find any reliable third-party sources using Google. –barakokula31 (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 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) 21:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a university club or society that certainly doesn't meet the WP:GNG requirements. Ajf773 (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The single listing from a contest does not demonstrate encyclopaedic notability for this society, nor are searches, including Indian media searches, finding anything better. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 29 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. Despite L3X1's mistaken impression that canoes are rowed (they're paddled), there's clear consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Shaw (canoeist)[edit]

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

WP:AUTOBIO; no coverage beyond a couple of articles from local papers and race placements. Not enough for WP:SPORTBASIC. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a brief article about a canoeist who retired in 2012. The article appears to have been created by the canoeist himself. Vorbee (talk) 14:56, 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) 21:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable boat rower. z'L3X1 (distænt write) 23:08, 30 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 01:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teodore Acosta[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Fails the general and subject-specific notability criteria. — Za wl 16:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 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) 21:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. None of his works appear notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG, I found sources instead on a Spanish mayor and an Arizona DUI convict. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:10, 30 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. per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expanded Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale to Modes Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EPIDSM Locrian[edit]

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

see - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expanded Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale to Modes Roxy the dog. bark 16:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expanded Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale to Modes Power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:37, 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) 21:31, 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. per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expanded Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale to Modes Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EPIDSM Phrygian[edit]

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

see - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expanded Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale to Modes Roxy the dog. bark 16:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expanded Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale to Modes Power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:37, 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) 21:31, 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 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expanded Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale to Modes. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EPIDSM Dorian[edit]

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

see - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expanded Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale to Modes Roxy the dog. bark 16:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expanded Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale to Modes Power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:37, 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) 21:30, 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. per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expanded Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale to Modes Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EPIDSM Aeolian[edit]

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

see - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expanded Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale to Modes Roxy the dog. bark 16:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expanded Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale to Modes Power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:37, 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) 21:30, 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. per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expanded Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale to Modes Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EPIDSM Lydian[edit]

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

see -Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expanded Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale to Modes Roxy the dog. bark 16:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expanded Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale to Modes Power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:37, 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) 21:30, 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. per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expanded Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale to Modes Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EPIDSM Mixolydian[edit]

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

see - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expanded Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale to Modes Roxy the dog. bark 16:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expanded Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale to Modes Power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:36, 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) 21:30, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nausch Hogan & Murray[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 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) 21:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it appears that this article does not include any significant sources or coverage from third-parties (in addition, most of the external links provided in the article appear to be broken). In my opinion, this article does not meet Wikipedia's general notability requirements. Name goes here (talk | contribs) 03:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am unable to find coverage to show that this meets WP:GNG or WP:COMPANY. gongshow talk 08:56, 29 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 In Death. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eve Dallas[edit]

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

The article covers a non-notable fictional character. There does not appear to be enough coverage on this character from reliable, third-party sources to justify the character having her own article. While doing a search for resources, all I could find were blogs discussing the characters and promotional information on the novels. All of the information about this character could be covered in the article on the parent series (in Death). Aoba47 (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.Aoba47 (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.Aoba47 (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 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) 21:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to in Death. No indication of separate notability for this character, so the main article is the place she should be covered. --RL0919 (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Aoba47 (talk) 18:25, 26 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) 13:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Godiva (band)[edit]

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

(...and by implication Godiva (album) and the redirect at Call Me Under 666)

This is a follow up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryonic Temple, and is a pretty similar situation, but it gets complicated, so bear with me.

First, there's about two dozen notable things that share the name. So you end up with a search that looks something like this, until you narrow it down to basically nothing as far as news goes. If you switch to open web searches you get some apparent churnalism, passing mention, and very niche promotional interviews, with quaint plugs to remind you to check out their myspace page. And that's really the best of it in a search that pretty quickly wanders off into other topics.

None of the members appear to be independently notable. At first glance, it looks like they're sideways connected to other things that might be, but it's basically a giant almost entirely unreferenced walled garden, including their album, their label, their other label, and their producer.

It's possible that these are not actually overtly promotional, and just made by an over eager fan, but if a few of these go to the bin, probably looking toward a larger AfD at some point. Maybe there's something in German that I'm missing, but there's no article on de.wiki, so that doesn't make me hopeful. TJW ^talk 12:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:02, 15 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) 21:28, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scenario II (band)[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC, as I can't find any reliable references to support what is being said. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 12:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources providing in-depth coverage, and so does not meet musical notability or general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 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) 21:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NMUSIC. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:07, 30 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. Per the recent precedent in similar AfDs and the WP:CIL issue, participation here suggests that both are important. —SpacemanSpiff 13:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indian medical college rankings, 2015[edit]

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

There are several issues with these lists. First, there is an issue of copyright in list in quoting an entire list. Second, they are misleading in that none of them is complete, and institutes are arbitrarily included or excluded. The same applies to ratings. Third, the lists are outdated and as such serve very little purpose. As a matter of fact, practically none of them are the targets of other articles. Muhandes (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian University Rankings and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian law school rankings. These articles are poorly sourced and act are more than enrolment guide rather than an encyclopedia as per WP:NOT Ajf773 (talk) 07:25, 18 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) 21:27, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blue marble (musician)[edit]

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

A non notable musician. Article claims a lot of things, but nothing could be corroborated. I couldnt find reliable sources. The subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. No sources as of the nomination date since creation.

Possibly an autobiography (artist name: Matthias; username: Mattix30), subjects date of birth is 30. An article by the same user, "Marble recordings" was speedily deleted. This article might have been previously created by other name. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For reasons given above, just wanted to note that of the sources added since the nomination only one appears to not be self-created (the "Fuzz Magazine Article"), and that appears to be a blog post. The mention of Matthias De Herdt is also a trivial mention of his previous work as part of a duo among a discussion of several other artists. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:07, 15 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) 21:27, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mandingo (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No significant coverage, not signed to a major record label, cannot find any indication of their albums receiving awards or charting. PGWG (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- non notable band, fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO--XFhumu^Talk 11:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Band fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:12, 30 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, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Rose Golf Course[edit]

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

Not notable golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable former gulf course (how have I come to be typing this?) which fails WP:MILL and WP:CORPDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:52, 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) 21:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although there is one article that seems to be discussing this topic indepth ([7]), the article is infact routine news about the foreclosure of the course. I could not find any other information that is indepth and from a reliable source about this golf course. Thus, it should be deleted for not being verifiable. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 22:44, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Layne[edit]

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

Actress of questionable notability-also contrary to how it sounds in the article, she herself didn't win a award, but the short film she was in did. Wgolf (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:05, 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 04:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried searches for "Tara Siegel" as well as "Tara Layne", and was unable to find evidence to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR at this time. gongshow talk 23:40, 18 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) 21:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The content of the article cannot be supported be reliable sources. In a quick search, I did not find any in-depth coverage of this actress. Thus, the article, due to how it is not able to be verified, should be deleted. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 19:40, 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 01:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NEO Connect[edit]

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

Non-notable product of a non-notable company. References are PR. No in-depth coverage in independent sources. Pontificalibus (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Pontificalibus (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the proposed deletion. Article can be improved with further citations from independent sources, or alternatively should be merged with NEO Exchange which has more notability. --CorSter (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I nominated the article was because I couldn't find further citations from independent sources. If you know of any please do add them. I would oppose a merger with NEO Exchange because this product has nothing to do with NEO Exchange, other than being created by the same company.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:37, 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 04:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PRODUCT and WP:GNG. Article literally has a directory in it, so fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:34, 17 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) 21:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't be supported by multiple independent, reliable sources. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 16:20, 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 01:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kasturi Suman Kumar[edit]

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

An exact page called Suman kumar kasturi has already been deleted. The editor seems to be creating a self promotion page using his website as reference. Most references in the page are irrelevant. For example, the editor claims this person is an air force officer and mentions the air force website as reference. There is no mention of the author on the public website(as should be the case). The editor in question has been using SOCK's to create new accounts and you can read more Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Venuanki. I have explained to a SOCK of the editor why this article does not meet WP:NOTABILITY and should be deleted User_talk:Adamgerber80#Removed_the_previously_added_category._Please_consider_reconciliation. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:46, 15 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) 21:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If deleted, Draft:Kasturi Suman Kumar should be deleted also. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the nominated article is deleted, then Draft:Kasturi Suman Kumar will qualify for speedy deletion criterion 8 per {{Db-redirnone}}. Steel1943 (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article currently has three incoming redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been misinterpreted that myself (venuanki) as Kasturi Suman Kumar. My full name is Ankireddipalli Venugopal Reddy. As I have been following all his works and felt that he should have wiki presence, I have created this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Venuanki (talk • contribs)
Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Not worth more discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:40, 30 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) 13:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misa Uehara (actress, born 1983)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, as tagged since September 2008. Incorrect BLPPROD tag was removed because of external links. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 00:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 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) 21:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject's own website and IMDb are not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 26 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) 14:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Home Assistant[edit]

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT, as tagged since March 2017. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 00:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article reads like a list of features or a service brochure, fails WP:PRODUCT and WP:MILL as nothing differentiates the service from others in the industry.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:54, 17 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) 21:21, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Rupp[edit]

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

No valid refs and no indication of notability. Fails WP:NM. Nick Number (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced vanispamcruftisement. No indication of meeting WP:MUSIC. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  21:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No mentions (that I could find) in reliable sources, thus making the subject fail verifiability and our general notability criteria. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 22:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced BLP of amateur web entertainer, full of OR, an ORPHAN, and almost entirely PROMO. Article was created by a SPA acct, whose only edits have been to service this article. Agricola44 (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find any Releiable sources.--XFhumu^Talk 15:52, 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) 19:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Edge[edit]

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

Article concerns a footballer who fails the sport-specific notability guideline because he has never played at senior international level or in a fully professional league. Note that although he was on the books of pro clubs, he never played first-team football for them. There doesn't seem to be enough independent non-routine coverage to satisfy the general notability guideline. Previously deleted by PROD (twice, apparently), hence we're at AfD. Struway2 (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:41, 24 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) 10:47, 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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A. V. Thomas[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article with just 5 lines about the individual, with the rest of the article being promotional toward a company (of the same name) he founded. A web search shows up only results of the same business. Mark the train^Discuss 17:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - he was a state-level and national politician. Anything that might otherwise be poor regarding the article can be fixed. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC) I've just restored the last good version. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: But article needs work! - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has adequete sourcing and doesn't seem to be promotional at all, now that it has been cleaned up. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 20:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has a clean pass of #1 as a confirmed member of national and state-level legislatures; any content issues beyond that are for the editing process to fix, not the deletion process. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator per WP:NOTCLEANUP. (non-admin closure) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of African-American neighborhoods[edit]

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

Completely unsourced and fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we have African-American neighborhood and articles on particular such neighborhoods, it seems entirely appropriate to have this list. Could you elaborate on how you think WP:NOTDIRECTORY is relevant? --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- See #7. The information makes no citations. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:04, 22 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) 18:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A valid navigational list of blue-linked neighborhood articles. It's sufficient that sourcing can be found in those articles.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:54, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Seavy-Nesper[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a radio producer, which is referenced entirely to primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage about her in media provided at all. Being an "online media" producer for a radio show, even a national one, is not a notability criterion that guarantees a Wikipedia article to every such person who exists -- it would be fine if she could show enough media coverage about her to pass WP:GNG, but not if the only sources you can provide are the self-published websites of the show she works on, her alma mater and an organization she's a member of: media other than her own paycheque provider need to be writing about her work to make her notable for it. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   I am the creator. My only dog in the fight is having decided to clear up my doubt about whether she is the Molly C. V. Nestor i keep hearing about, or not.
   I have no idea whether we customarily apply identical standards to people associated with profit-driven org'ns and to people associated with gov't-grant receiving non-profits. (Perhaps it's irrelevant, but i notice that the POTUS considers her employer less reliable than his financial contributors!)
   (BTW, please help me dispel my illusion that there are no better sources than the respective degree-granting institutions, as who holds their academic degrees, than those institutions' own statements.)
   Hmm, John Hancock is giving me another 22 years, but the trend in my editing rate leaves me unwilling to undertake a self-remediation project at this point.
--Jerzy•t 04:03 & :08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

An educational institution is certainly an authoritative source for who did or didn't graduate from it, but that's not the point: the point is that its information about who graduated from it is not a notability-conferring source, but a primary source. That is, it can be used for supplementary verification of the fact after she's already been shown as the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG — but it's not a source that helps her get over GNG. And no, our notability and sourcing standards do not change based on whether the subject works for a profit or non-profit enterprise — they still require reliable source coverage about her, in media independent of her own paycheque provider, no matter what kind of organization or company she works for. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (tentative), as the article has no real RS. I did some preliminary searching, but could only find twitter, linkedin, and other such non-RS. Glad to change position if someone can find several instances of legitimate RS. Agricola44 (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete radio producers are almsot never notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 26 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, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of all Patrouille Suisse Pilots[edit]

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

Topic fails WP:LISTN and none of its entries appear to be individually notable people. – Joe (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Certainly fails WP:LISTN. Just a list of non notable people. Ajf773 (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator: this kind of article isn't in line with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria as nominal rolls and the like are not useful encyclopedic content. Nick-D (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a list on not-notable persons doesnt add any value to wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN. Almost everyone listed isn't notable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. As stated above it fails, WP:LISTN as to notability. Kierzek (talk) 19:39, 27 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) 19:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Carson[edit]

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

Gordon Carson was an NCO with E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II. His rank (staff sergeant) does not make him notable under WP:SOLDIER; no awards are indicated although he probably was awarded at least one Purple Heart because he suffered a wound. Carson served in all three major actions involving E Company during the war. In Austria, he married a Polish woman who was a displaced person; their experience with Carson's wife negotiating the War bride "pipeline" is probably not unique. After returning home, Carson became a coach and later an insurance salesman and was selected as the Junior Chamber of Commerce Man of the Year Award in 1953. There is no significant coverage of his post-war life. Carson was not depicted in the Band of Brothers miniseries. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable for stand alone article; redirect name to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Kierzek (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being part of a unit portrayed in media works does not default make all members notable. As I pointed out in an earlier discussion, not all the people portrayed in the film Hacksaw Ridge are notable. I have to confess other than the main subject I am not even sure how historically accurate the portrayals were, but the main subject had an article long before the film was released, because he is clearly historically notable, and I am not convinced anyone else appearing in the film is truly notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 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) 13:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ferring F.C.[edit]

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

Club hasn't competed in an FA cup competition or played at level 10 or higher of the English football league system Kivo (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the generally accepted criteria for English football clubs (see here for an AfD on a club that did meet the criteria). Number 5 7 17:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - Although the club hasn't played in any league of any note, they are covered by local media. I am on the borderline because of the lack of independent sources (in the article, not out in the world). But, I think that the information is reliable enough that the article should be kept. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 19:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - they were certainly at Level 10 (Step 6) or equivalent from 1964-72 and from 1985-90. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c5:5263:1f00:9022:db08:13f3:b7 (talk • contribs)
- The whole pyramid was a step higher in the 1980s (as the Conference North/South hadn't been created), so I'm not convinced we would consider level 10/step 6 notable during that period. Number 5 7 10:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. SOurces available seem to be either primary, routine match reporting, or very (i.e. town-level) local media coverage, the sort that almost all local teams get to some degree. Fenix down (talk) 10:55, 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. (non-admin closure) — Za wl 17:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coco (2017 musical film)[edit]

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

This was discussed 18 months ago and it still has no release date. Also, the title seems to be wrong. — Film Fan 13:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - While the film has no release date, it looks like it is notable enough by the sources. Perhaps adding "Category:Cancelled films" instead? 47.208.20.130 (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot set such a category, as no sources say it is cancelled. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

Final title:

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

Keep per being a completed film with sourcing to meet WP:NFF simply awaiting release by Lionsgate. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:39, 26 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 01:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LifeSource Water Systems[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPIP. References provided are either mentions-in-passing (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Lack of WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hi, I'm a paid editor for LifeSource, which I've disclosed on the article's talk page. I usually avoid paid editing because the articles in question are often too obscure for inclusion, but I took interest in this one because I felt that it was sufficiently notable and just in need of some cleanup. Namely, it's an 80 employee company with 11 physical locations in 5 different states and has a 33 year history and had a revenue of $15M in 2016, which puts it above many existing small business articles. Also, looking at this press release, they seem to have started a sizable project recently in Peru. I think that the article's biggest issue right now is its low number of secondary sources, but that may in part be due to the company's existence before the days of the Internet, and per WP:NPOSSIBLE, I think it should be given the benefit of the doubt there. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 22:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, Pikamander2, but I don't see the notability here. That it has existed for so long without receiving significant coverage suggests that the company is not notable. Nothing wrong with that, most companies aren't, but it makes it unsuitable for the encyclopedia. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Rentier (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again sorry, but simply not enough in-depth sourcing from independent reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:37, 30 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 15:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self religion[edit]

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

Delete This article fails Notabilty. It is based on the theory of one author, Heelas and the other references used to support the article are passing and mostly citing Heelas' single use of this term. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I will add that I think this article also violates WP:SYTH in that the sources used are tangental and do not agree. I also think it is significant that this article was created by two former administrators who were both found by arbitration committees to be abusing Wikipedia as part of a well documented POV campaign. As a result both are no longer admins. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:39, 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 02:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's also the main article for Category:Self religions, too. If this goes then the category should be addressed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:10, 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) 03:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Book (Rebus)[edit]

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

Redirect to Rebus (TV series). This unsourced articled does not establish notability and contains information about the tv episode that is adequately summarized in the article about the tv series. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages to be redirected to the same target for the same reason:

Well, I would oppose this, obviously; the reason I set these pages up in the first place was because I thought they were useful additions to the project.

The rationale for deletion is that the article “does not establish notability” and that the content is “adequately summarized” in the series article.

First, the notability guideline for television says that “an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television network with a national audience” The article already stated that it was made for STV when it was tagged for this, so it already met this requirement. All these episodes have been shown numerous times by STV [8], and ITV in England (on a continuous loop, it seemed, a few years ago), and more recently on Drama [9] , as well as overseas.[10]

Second, that they are adequately summarized in the series article. Well, I would expect that; the purpose of having episode pages is to extend the information on them beyond a summary, which they did when they were written. If the series page has more information now, the remedy would be to expand and improve the episode pages, not collapse them back down to the summaries. I would suggest that would be a better course of action, and also to create pages on the episodes that don't yet have them. Swanny18 (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I've just deleted the notability tag from the Black Books (Rebus) article, as it meets the criteria for the guideline linked. Swanny18 (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, why is this and the others here for deletion, the nominator wants them redirected, this discussion should be closed and redirect discussion taken to the talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 1 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)}}} 04:48, 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) 03:08, 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 09:41, 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 merge to Abak. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abak/Midim Clan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article shouldn't be a standalone page, it should be integrated into Abak page. Zazzysa (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  17:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  18:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge as per nom. Tecrum (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the nomination is only proposing a merge, but a "delete and merge" !vote is present. Also of note is that deleted articles are often not merged, as most users don't have access to them after deletion occurs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please note that merge and delete is not possible per licensing rules. When merging, the page history must be preserved for attribution. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  09:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Abak. EMachine03 (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Abak. Unsourced and no evidence of independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:47, 26 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 01:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Carmouche[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Claim that he "won a Grammy" is a bit exaggerated, him being one of 14 producers (and only working on three tracks Speakerboxxx/The Love Below#Personnel). Sources only mention him in passing, which isn't too surprising as a producer but nothing that's in-depth enough to write a verifiable biography. menaechmi (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BAND states that winning a Grammy makes someone notable, and the official Grammys website states that he won one. Maybe it was part of a group effort, but the page doesn't state it was awarded to a group, but to him. Could it use more information? Absolutely, but the article doesn't merit deletion on notability. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BAND states that someone may be notable if they win a Grammy, but defers to WP:BASIC. Beyond the Grammy statement, the only verifiable information that exists is that he worked with Big Boi in 2011.[11][12][13] There's no way to satisfy WP:BLP or WP:V. menaechmi (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ALL the audio engineers who worked on Speakerboxxx/The Love Below won Grammys for their work on the album, so if Carmouche is notable, then by that logic John Frye, Vincent Alexander, Matt Still and Moka Nagatani are as well... with three wins in total, Frye has a better claim to notability than the others. Richard3120 (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, we could redirect to the album that he got the Grammy for. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 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 08:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the grammy is for an album, not in this case given to an individual as such, so it is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:BASIC. Referring to WP:BAND seems a bit of a stretch to me - as in the discussion above, it's a list of things that may suggest notability. As there's not enough coverage to provide verifiable information, it's clear this article doesn't meet inclusion criteria. Ralbegen (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. The grammy is not for him, and there isn't enough in-depth sourcing to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:32, 30 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) 14:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bluegrass companies[edit]

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

Originally proposed for deletion for non-notability but tag removed. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Ifnord (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand the process but I will help in any possible way to save this page, this company really helped us out in Greenville al and furthermore some of the work I used to do with them was definitely notable if you deam nuclear decommissioning important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.223.3.176 (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may not seem notable to y'all but this company provided a younger me and others the best jobs in lower Alabama and really saved this community. Furthermore how are the department of energy etc sources not good enough? Is this how wiki works some guy can just delete something that had been worked on by me and others from here for three years? Who is getting hurt by this article? They helped decommission a fusion reactor with people from south Alabama what more could you people want? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B11C:9DF4:9115:A6D4:A8EC:64AA (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read in the AFD area that "When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy" It appears as thought this protocol is not being followed here, my stance is "keep" obviously i have contributed to the article however see the following link to google scholar which references the company https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=bluegrassbit&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C1

bluegrass companies represents a combination of 5 companies that are owned by the same individual, this name has recently become dominant in the organization over bluegrass bit hence why it was used for the article title... look through those google scholar references much of the knowledge and protocol contained in those articles was provided by this set of companies, and must be deemed notable unless one is biased against the company for a personal reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.111.114.126 (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

more sources: ler. "Given the superior performance of the concrete shaver, the Environmental Restoration contractor at Hanford purchased the system and fully intends to utilize it during decommissioning of F and DR reactors. Other DOE sites which have expressed significant interest in the shaving system include the Rocky Flats Environmental Restoration Site and the Nevada Test Site. The system would be used to decontaminate large pads. Service providers, e.g., WM’99 CONFERENCE, FEBRUARY 28 – MARCH 4, 1999 Bluegrass Concrete Cutting Inc., are also expressing an interest in the technology and may include it in their full line of services." http://www.wmsym.org/archives/1999/30/30-2.pdf

"There have been several DOE funded D&D activities that are relevant to the dismantling of large radioactive equipment. A TFA report entitled "Melter Glass Removal and Dismantlement" from ORNL8 summarizes these various activities. These activities include the D&D Chicago-Pile No. 5 (CP-5) research reactor, the size reduction of the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) Vacuum Vessel, and D&D work at the INEEL South Tank Farm in January 2000. Technologies used included the Dual Arm Work Platform (DAWP) at CP-5 (DAWP developed by ORNL), diamond wire cutting by Bluegrass Concrete Cutting, Inc. at the TFTR, and the Modified Brokk Demolition Machine (at the STF)." http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/tr2001248/tr2001248.html

--208.111.114.126 (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." from the notability corp section on wiki, bluegrass has been cited by more than 3 government aka independent sources for items which are notable, i rest my case.KEEP. --208.111.114.126 (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also just watch some of the videos on their page https://www.facebook.com/Bluegrasscompanies/ it is honestly interesting stuff, maybe it is not notable? but I would really like to understand why if not, and I understand facebook is not a source just figured it may be interesting to understand what they do... I have read the notability wiki page and I have not seen where this is not notable as they are referenced in more than 3 scholarly works published by the gov websites where they are not a casual mention but part of the team that yielded the information the whole articles are on. --208.111.114.126 (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines are not arbitrary, they are applied to every discussion on notability. Besides reading those, I would also point out WP:SOCK. You may not create accounts or use different IPs in an effort to distort consensus. Ifnord (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i was using my cellphone (sorry i can't control which tower it connects to) and i never claimed to be someone else or attempted to act as if the accounts were different people .... I have read them and you have yet to present a real counter argument, I thought this was to be a discussion not absolutism, where one party present no willingness to engage in discussion. --208.111.114.126 (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

if you can present a real counter argument against their .gov and other scholarly sources then go ahead and reason with me, I am willing to come to an agreement of not notable or notable but I want to at least follow the afd process as it should be done.--208.111.114.126 (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

glad to see process being followed correctly, looking forward to a productive discussion --208.111.114.126 (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would be interested in hearing some possible counter arguments against the scholarly citations or other notability clarification, after reading the afd guidelines that says that with no clear consensus keep is the default, I must maintain my position of KEEP. Obviously I care about the subject but just voicing my opinion nonetheless... --208.111.114.126 (talk) 13:58, 28 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 01:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Bailey[edit]

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

Fails WP:NM - promotional ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding - WP:MUSICBIO - making note that the following does not meet the criteria (my bold): except for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3] Most of the cited sources are interviews with the rapper talking about himself and his hopes of becoming notable. He distributed his own album via iTunes Hip Hop and was not notable enough to make the Top 40. Needs time to incubate, not ready yet. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A cursory search reveals a lot of press, especially in Canada, including major news venues: [14], [15], [16], [17] [18], [19]. He has also performed at SXSW: [20], [21], [22] and, according to the wiki article, several other music festivals. There's more out there but it requires a lengthier search than I performed, plus possibly some added or subtracted keywords to narrow the search to this person (due to the common name). Softlavender (talk) 03:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator - re: the links provided above:

Forbes Music Entertainment is a private marketing company (not affiliated with Forbes) that provides record label services and helps independents market themselves.
The 1st CBC link is promotion of him and FME, and in the article he states that he is currently only in Nova Scotia with hopes that FME can get him promoted. FME is a far cry from having a Sony or Atlantic Records label.
Cape Breton Post: Cape Breton Post is local coverage of news, events, and sports from communities in the Cape Breton Regional Municipality and the counties of Inverness, Richmond and Victoria. Hardly fits the bill for notability.
Rhyme Junkie promotional interview wherein he speaks about himself and his 1st album, and the billboard in his hometown. He said, "We were gonna pay them – it’s like $700 here to have the ad up for a whole month." But the hometowners didn't charge him. Hardly notable. (music networking)
Artist interviews, again pure promotion, (music networking).
Canadian Beats, 40 Canadian music fans working hard to promote all the musical talent that Canada has to offer - promotion.
Rhyme Junkie again, only this time they list songs for sale. Pure promotion.
He was not a star attraction at the music festivals, he was just another entertainer who hasn't become notable except for his own promotions, marketing, and self-promoting interviews.
He does not meet WP:NM per Note 1: someone simply talking about themselves in their own personal blog, website, book publisher, social networking site or music networking site, etc., does not automatically mean they have sufficient attention in the world at large to be notable. If that was so then everyone could have an article. Wikipedia is not a directory.
And keep in mind the COI/business manager creator pointed out below by Argento. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of the 9 links I provided are the subject "simply talking about themselves in their own personal blog, website, book publisher, social networking site or music networking site". Moreover, CBC News is the news arm of Canada's public broadcaster, equivalent to PBS news and BBC News. Softlavender (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CBC is the only RS that meets the requirements for notability, and in that interview 3+ months ago, the young hopeful rapper admitted that he'd like to be as successful as Nova Scotia rapper Classified (rapper). Wanting to be successful does not substantiate notability. I thought Yani Sherbatov was a borderline notable fighter, far more notable than this local rapper, but his article was deleted. The other 5 sources you provided are not reliable for establishing WP:NM notability, and neither are the performances. He's simply one of thousands of hopefuls at this stage of the game, and clearly needs more time in the incubator. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that "CBC is the only RS that meets the requirements for notability". He has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician. Softlavender (talk) 06:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, his goal is to be notable - not that he is notable, and dreaming or hoping for something is not worthy of inclusion in WP. Read the promos - that is all we see covered in any of the sources - it is promo, RS or not. How can you not see that it is anything but promotional? ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. See WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Per Softlavender, coverage appears substantial enough. Seems to meet WP:MUSICBIO by a hair. PureRED | talk to me | 04:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (struck - see below) - Some of the links included under "references" are significant coverage from noteworthy sources Argento Surfer (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article was created by User:Mickey Freeman, which is a single-purpose account so far. Per this source, Mickey Freeman is Mitchell Bailey's business manager. If the article is kept, a COI notice may be needed. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's a valid concern; however personally I think the issue can be dealt with by editing/copyediting/cleanup, and also placing the COI notice on the talk page instead of on the article itself. Softlavender (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He does not pass WP:MUSICBIO, and the sourcing is not adequate to state that he passes WP:GNG in lieu. While it's true that the CBC is Canada's national public broadcaster, the CBC link provided here is not from the CBC's national news division, but from its local station in the subject's own hometown, so it does not demonstrate that he got reliable source coverage beyond just the CBRM alone. The Cape Breton Post is also local coverage; LocalXpress is a hyperlocal webmedia startup, not a widely distributed daily newspaper that counts toward GNG at all; and virtually all of the other references are PR blogs. A musician does not automatically get to have a Wikipedia article just because the local media in his own hometown paid him some attention, because that's simply to be expected — to get a musician past NMUSIC, the reliable source coverage has to expand outward beyond just the hometown local outlets. Plus the conflict of interest issue doesn't help — COI isn't a deletion criterion in and of itself if the article can be repaired, but this can't yet. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he's got a stronger notability claim and evidence of wider not-just-Cape-Breton reliable source coverage than he does right now. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per some of the discussion above, I no longer feel the sources are reliable. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a promotional article on an artist who's not yet notable. "#46 on the Canadian iTunes Hip-Hop charts" is hardly a claim of significance. The sources provided above are not convincing, being WP:SPIP / passing mentions, or otherwise not suitable for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources, so he fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Bearcat's analysis is spot on, and the single charting that low on a non-significant chart isn't even enough notability for the single, let alone the artist. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the analysis by nom and the well-respected Canadian Bearcat. This article is barely more than spam. Bearian (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Takuya Imahori[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:CREATIVE. No major works,no evidence of recordings. The awards for all of them for composers at an early stage of their career. We translate that as "not yet notable" . The reviews seem to be relatively routine reviews of individual performances. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 8 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) 19:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first edition of the article was just a stub and now translated full of the article from Japanese Wikipedia. 93.36.178.162 (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep expanded article, makes claim of major international awards for composing, Sadads (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Although there is coverage of this composer, there just isn't enough significant coverage. Also, the composer has not won "a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers". (WP:COMPOSER) RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 22:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG fails WP:ARTIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:28, 30 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 01:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cityscrapes: Los Angeles[edit]

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

Cannot find any significant coverage from reliable sources that indicate notability. Fails WP:NMOVIE; Cannot find any full length reviews, major awards, etc. --Darth Mike^(talk) 19:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete No evidence in article or in search of significant coverage or other indicators of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage that I can find. Ralbegen (talk) 17:05, 30 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaica Craft[edit]

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

Little coverage in independent, reliable sources to suggest she passes biographical notability standards. Her biggest claim to fame is working with Usher and notability isn't inherited. DrStrauss talk 11:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability claim of being a backup dancer is not convincing. Article full of OR and sourced by a single non-RS webzine. Seems to be a fanpage. Agricola44 (talk) 14:31, 8 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) 20:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 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 06:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete - Although there is some coverage in independent and reliable sources, there just isn't enough. The state of the article just pushes this over the line for me. If this could be cleaned up, then I would be willing to change my vote to a keep. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 02:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a backup performer not indepdently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 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 01:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Architeam[edit]

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

No evidence could be found that this is a notable organisation. There are many other organisations with the same name, and e.g. the Architeam awards are not from this organisation. Fram (talk) 12:17, 8 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) 20:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom's points, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:MILL.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete False positives aside, there are no WP:RS for this organization. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can not find enough in-depth sourcing about this particular organization of this name. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:22, 30 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 01:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolai Tsankov[edit]

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

Non-notable individual who fails WP:GNG and is in violation of WP:NACTOR. Probable autobiography given creator name. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is an autobiography and you will delete it according to guidelines. I created it simply because my name was cited in an article about my latest feature - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Killed_Hitler_And_Then_The_Bigfoot - and because there is an article about me created in Bulgarian already - https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Николай_Цанков_(актьор).

How about if we somehow merge those two so I can have the article about me in English as well? I reside and work in the US, and would very much appreciate the opportunity to update the data with the latest and most accurate info about me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Tsankov + https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Николай_Цанков_(актьор) = me

Thanks,

Nikolai Tsankov --Nikotsan (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 8 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) 20:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:22, 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 06:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unless his Bulgarian work is much more substantial than what is listed in IMDb, he doesn't satisfy NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total lack of reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see not much on his c.v., mostly redshirt-type characters. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The discussion refutes the claims from the earlier AfD regarding the VC status providing notability through one of the SNG points. —SpacemanSpiff 07:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagawati Prakash Sharma[edit]

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

Lots of puffery here, but ultimately insufficient claim to notability. No coverage in secondary sources, and so does not meet WP:GNG. Claims in the article about lots of publications, but cannot be seen on google scholar (suggesting they are from dodgy journals and publishers); research gate link shows much output but no impact (hasn't been cited a single time, thus fails WP:PROF). Much was made in the previous AfD about him being the "vice-chancellor of Pacific University", but there is little evidence that said private university, despite its grandiose name, counts as a "major academic institution". Private universities in south Asia are very common; furthermore, it is really a stretch to apply WP:PROF to an academic whose own research gate profile documents 0 citations of his work. Also substantial evidence of promotional intent in the history. Delete. Vanamonde (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 8 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) 20:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads as a CV, from which it was probably drawn. GetSomeUtah (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The vice-chancellor of a university is generally notable. Generally. Because generally to become a VC, a person has to go through a lot of hoola-huppas. It is generally assumed that if a person is VC, he has done a lot of substantial, notable work. Thats why enwiki policy says VCs are generally notable. But in this case, the subject fails WP:PROF. On a side note, the history of the article is not at clean. Lots of puffery, single purpose COI accounts. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is a vice-chancellor of a university.the question is whether this is a major academic institution, but I think he scrapes through.122.171.75.98 (talk) 01:56, 27 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 01:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shakir ul Qadri[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage so seems to fail WP:NAUTHOR. He will fail WP:GNG too. Greenbörg (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:08, 8 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) 20:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've tried searching with both the subject's name and his better known epithet. I can't find anything reliable about him; all hits which come up are for different individuals with similar names. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on the basis of a fuller Urdu Wikipedia page suggesting better sourcing available. Bondegezou (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Saqib: Could you please check this article? Greenbörg (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No RS cited on Urdu WP. --Saqib (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails GNG guideline.122.172.215.246 (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply inadequate sourcing, and searches don't turn up anything to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:19, 30 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 01:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anton De Ionno[edit]

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

An apparently self-started article and contested prod, this article has no demonstration of notability and I couldn't find much on a Google search. Fails WP:ARTIST and does not have significant coverage about the subject in any periodicals I could find. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:23, 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) 20:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:26, 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 06:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability in article or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a few blogs, and some trivial mentions. Nothing beyond that. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:16, 30 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) 14:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Birdsong[edit]

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

This biography of a traveling fundamentalist Christian preacher seems to exist only to mock him. One of the sources is a dead link to a USA Today article which may have mentioned him in the context of campus preachers. Outside of that dead link, the coverage is all local and campus news. Gary Birdsong may be a fixture on North Carolina campuses, but that doesn't make him notable. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC) World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Based upon the cited sources, he certainly seems notable per WP:N. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Meets the GNG. See also this source not already used in the article. The USA Today story makes the coverage sufficiently non-local, but even without it the depth of local coverage is enough. The fact that the USA Today link is dead is irrelevant, and anyway it's archived. It does more than mention him, it's mostly about him. If the article exists mostly to mock him, well, if that's a deletion criterion WP is going to lose huge numbers of biographical articles, isn't it? Central and Adams (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The whole point of USA today is to aggregate lots of local coverage, not so much to provide substantial, reasoned, and well-thought out national coverage. Wikipedia is not news, and just because people have been covered in a few news sources does not default make them notable. We need to take the broad, long, historical view, not the passing news view, and in that view, Birdsong is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Daily Tar Heel is a student paper (arguably the best in the United States because of the journalism faculty at Chapel Hill, but it is still a student paper, which means we don't count it towards notability). WRAL is exceedingly local, but the issue of free speech is one that is significant in the history of that institution (see the North Carolina Speaker Ban for the background here). That means the Birdsong ban has likely been discussed in more recent histories of the university that would count as RS, but are unlikely to be available online. USA Today is eh, but its national so when combined with the local coverage, is enough to get it over the bar for me. There is also likely print coverage of Mr. Birdsong in the North Carolina Collection, given the outsized personality he has on many North Carolina campuses, and considering that it is also on Chapel Hill's campus. We have enough here to scrape past the GNG when considering WP:NPOSSIBLE. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, I did a search of the UNC library system (publicly available, but its behind a paywall for online content, so I was unable to get links to each of the sources), and its turning up an Associated Press article from 2002 about the Quran that got extensive reprinting. Several mentions ranging from 1997-2010 from the The News & Observer (regional press, which is better than local, but not by much). Several local stories, and one mention in the Chronicle of Higher Education. This is just their online journalism search. Special Collections (which the NCC is) are notoriously difficult to search because so much of it is paper text that hasn't been digitized either on Google Books, or where the library itself doesn't know if there would be coverage. Given the coverage in the AP as well as the Chronicle of Higher Ed, combined with the USA Today above, and considering the existence of local sources and likely print sources, I'm upgrading to a full keep here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:43, 27 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 E-commerce in Bangladesh. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Marketing in Bangladesh[edit]

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

per WP:NOT. The references are a collection on news from Bangladesh on the topic of digital marketing, but they all appear to be WP:MILL coverage, and many are about "global digital marketing events" that happen to be in Bangladesh.

Sent to AfD because there are several similar articles (such as E-commerce in Bangladesh); they may be possible merge targets, or might be best deleted as well. Digital marketing has its own problems, but may also be a possible target. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 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 06:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to E-commerce in Bangladesh. I am surprised there aren't more E-commerce in Country articles, as there are considerable differences between countries and notable local features. E-commerce in China for example is an eminently notable topic. However I see we have only E-commerce in India and then the shorter E-commerce in Bangladesh. As for digital marketing, according to E-commerce it's a part of that subject. For that reason I think this belongs in E-commerce in Bangladesh unless eventually a WP:SIZESPLIT is called for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pontificalibus (talk • contribs) 05:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the more appropriate E-commerce in Bangladesh.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to E-commerce in Bangladesh without any rush. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:08, 27 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) 19:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Badway[edit]

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

promotional article started by apparent undeclared paid editor, banned 5 years ago for sockpupettry. The only thing that might be actually notable here is false: He did not win a Tony for 2012 revival of P&B. The show won the award. His role as "one of the producers" is either unmentioned or barely mentioned in all reports of the award. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 07:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PR article on non-notable subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with User:Johnpacklambert Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:17, 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 Draftify. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 10:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bossing & Ai[edit]

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

Does not satisfy television notability. Poorly sourced. No explanation of why this show that has not yet aired is notable. No independent sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete due to lack of sources that are independent and not promotional. If not deleted, then history merge with Draft:Bossing & Ai. One is the copy-paste of the other. If deleted, be sure to delete both. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steve Quinn tried to draftify the article. Draftifying is sort of a compromise between deletion and retention. The author then restored the article in draft space, showing that the author did not want the compromise of having it in draft space. I am willing to leave the draft in draft space if the user plans to work on it, but for now, by rejecting draftification, the author has chosen to have a deletion discussion. As nominator, I !vote Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional sources and trivial coverage do not meet notability criteria. not a platform for promotion. Also, probably too soon. Retain in the draft space until it can be approved for the mainspace is an acceptable option. If the outcome is other than delete then the history merge as described by Smokey Joe would seem to be necessary. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment I've already merged the histories of the two pages, so if "draftify" is the final result then it all that is necessary is to move to draft. Primefac (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I agree that the article's creator hasn't demonstrated encyclopedic notability for this not-yet-aired program. But the program is scheduled to begin airing just a few days from now. It is possible that, if the show remains "on the air" for an entire season, it might well be possible to demonstrate notability at some later date. Moving to Draft space seems a reasonable accommodation for that possibility. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:16, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RapidVisa[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH and apparent case of paid editing Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Only notable for being brought to court, but as the case was dismissed I do not believe the article subject is any different from other visa services and as such fails WP:MILL. Also, the current article seems to promotional and was created by a UDP editor.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Although it was made by a paid editor, this service seems to be notable. It has in depth coverage in reliable sources. It passes WP:ORGDEPTH. The specific criteria that could be contestable is whether or not the coverage is routine. I believe the coverage not to be routine, as the articles are not simple statements or notices that something is happening with the company. In fact, the article in The Colorado Springs Business Journal was published on Nov. 9, 2015, while the court thing was finished on Sept. 2 (at least according to what I understand of the source). Overall, this is definitely not routine, and I don't think that it is promotional either. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 22:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable company and coverage is routine.122.171.237.5 (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is basically either non-RS, trivial mentions, WP:ROUTINE, or press releases.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:48, 30 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) 19:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Aetherverse[edit]

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

Lack of notability. New E-book with non-notable authors. Main editor appears to be adding to links/mentions in multiple articles MartinezMD (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am unable to find coverage to show that this book meets WP:GNG or WP:BKCRIT. gongshow talk 03:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to indicate notability is met, as stated. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 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. If someone wants to add some content about Chessbrah to Hansen's article, then a redirect could be made. Currently there's a reference to "Chessbrahs" being a username that Hansen uses, but nothing else. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chessbrah[edit]

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

It looks like all of the sources are primary and/or brief mentions of the subject, and I'm not seeing sufficient other sourcing out there to satisfy WP:GNG. We would need in-depth coverage of "chessbrahs" beyond coverage of Hansen and other involved individuals, and in publications not connected to the people involved (either financially or personally). Hansen himself is notable, however, and this is so closely associated with him that a redirect may make sense. (a merge only if reliable secondary sources are used, as including material based just on primary sources would be undue/promo). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: lack of participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 03:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The chessbrah article actually does cite a number of significant secondary sources, including recognition by the United States Chess Federation, the Canadian Chess Federation, and other independent sources. Among the most compelling is from La Presse, an independent news organization in Montreal, Canada, which produced a feature documentary of the chessbrahs, filming both GM Eric Hansen and IM Aman Hambleton, and others in primary source interviews as well as observing the chessbrahs in their natural habitat for the purpose of the feature piece; thus the entire feature may be considered a secondary source because of the news organization's full editorial control (i.e., this was not Chessbrah self-promotion; see reference 5: Grand Master 2.0, [23]). Documentaries are considered as secondary sources. Furthermore, the US Chess Federation (USCF) recognized "chessbrahs" in the bio of GM Hansen as one of the official commentators for the 2017 US Chess Championship, specifically recognizing that chessbrah is associated with not only GM Hansen, but others, as well (see reference 22: U.S. CHESS CHAMPS: MEET THE COMMENTATORS & ARBITERS: [24]. There are also several compelling secondary sources that reliably and notably cover not only the existence of The Montreal Chessbrahs chess team in the PRO CHESS LEAGUE, but cover their performance, including against World Champion Magnus Carlsen. The team's PRO CHESS LEAGUE roster includes a notable roster of world class chess players, including GM Fabiano Caruana and GM Anish Giri. See references 47 and 48 re: "The Montreal Chessbrahs" in the Pro Chess League. An additional secondary reference is from the Chess Federation of Canada here: [25]. The Chessbrah article must not be merged into Eric Hansen (Chess Player) because there are multiple chessbrahs (PLURAL), as stated in the article and supported by citations. GM Hansen is the founder of the name, yes, but Chessbrah is also a brand entity and a social movement within the chess community, as detailed in the article, and the chess community has social import to society at large, and the Current World Chess Champion, Magnus Carlsen, has been recently photographed with 2 chessbrahs, GMs Yasser Seirawan and Eric Hansen (see: [26]). In short, the chessbrah name is a recognized, reputable name in the chess community, it's been adopted into the name of a PRO CHESS LEAGUE team that competes at one of the highest levels of chess, and it's one of the most popular chess-related Twitch and YouTube channels, and it comprises several high-level titled chess players. The name Chessbrah definitely should not be associated with Eric Hansen alone as that would not be an accurate depiction of who the chessbrahs are and what they represent. It serves the public to inform who the chessbrahs are in the form of this Wikipedia article. It's why I wrote it in the first place. I respectfully urge Rhododendrites to keep the article. Piewalker 21:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- To be clear, I am not arguing that Hansen is not himself notable. He is. And I'm not opposed to mentioning "chessbrah" in that article. "Chessbrah" is not notable, though, and these sources just demonstrate that. They are brief mentions, use of the word, coverage of Hansen or individual notable people, etc. -- what we need is in-depth coverage of this subject as distinct from that of the involved people, published by secondary sources with a reputation for reliability, editorial oversight, fact-checking, etc. The first link, which is clearly the best quality source, displays the word Chessbrah, but seems to be about Hansen and not the concept/company "chessbrah". This has no in-depth coverage at all -- just a brief mention in a paragraph about Hansen. That it's used in a team's name would only help if there were in-depth coverage of the meaning of the name published in a different source (i.e. the members of the team may be notable, and the team may even be notable -- I haven't really looked -- but this article isn't about that team, but a company and/or lifestyle brand/identity. The standard would be WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I appreciate that, Ryan. What would be ideal to allow the article to survive? An independent news story discussing Chessbrah as its focus? A news story featuring World Champion Magnus Carlsen discussing the Chessbrahs? A feature in Chess Life Magazine? Perhaps a feature like this one on GMs Hansen and Van Kampen by SportsNet Canada: [27]? Or a completely new Wiki article describing the Pro Chess League Team "The Montreal Chessbrahs" with some of this article as background? What would you like to see happen?

Delete. To quote WP:SPIP, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." None of the quoted sources meet this standard. Neither "recognition" nor "reputation" nor "social import" nor who Carlsen was photographed with matters; what matters is whether people not associated with or trying to promote "Chessbrah" have written anything non-trivial about it. There is no sign that they have. Therefore the article should be deleted. Cobblet (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Cobblet, with respect it appears you didn't watch the 7-min documentary feature by La Presse. Your comment is wholly dismissive and unfairly so. It's certainly a non-trivial secondary source. I encourage you and other comers to watch it and seriously consider it. [28]. Also, something doesn't have to be "written" in print to be valid. Other independent sources of media count (video, radio, independent blogs, etc.) The medium is also the message. Piewalker 20:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  - A 15-second soundbite (4:23 to 4:38 in the video) is non-trivial? I don't think so. Recall that WP:GNG refers to "sources", meaning that "multiple sources are generally expected." If this was genuinely a topic of any "social import" one would surely not have to reach so hard to find even a single significant source. Cobblet (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eric Hansen (chess player). Utter lack of non-trivial mentions in secondary sources - most of the references are just links to YouTube. Not notable enough for a standalone article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per user Cobblet. Sophia91 (talk) 15:05, 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 redirect to Indu Sarkar. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rashmi Jha[edit]

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

Actress who falls under too soon-only one role so far. Either delete or redirect to the film. Wgolf (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect not enough independent and verifiable source to confirm notability yet WP:TOOSOON. Should be a redirect to Indu Sarkar. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 03:05, 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 redirect to Miss Latina US. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teen US Latina[edit]

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

The article has no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject; not suitable for a stand-alone article. Richie Campbell (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 03:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Latina US. Non-notable on its own. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. — Za wl 15:23, 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) 19:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Cuenca[edit]

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

Only passing mentions in the media, a before showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a sports reporter on its own is not enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of stuff like profiles that meet WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:50, 28 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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Ladymon[edit]

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

Looks like a WP:PROMO to me. Only notable for being a president of one corporation. Fails WP:NBIO. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With four citations to Find a Grave, the subject clearly isn't notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a mix of non-reliable sources (ancestry, at least when it is not a primary source) and primary sources. The article is more at the level of a geneological entry, proving someone is a link in a family, than proving they are notable. Mere existence is not the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 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.

^ Steininger, Ruslana (2017-08-15). "Meshmixer Saves Lives. Part 2: Bionic Vision and Patient Education". Autodeskresearch. Retrieved 2017-08-31.

[Review1-1] Steininger, Ruslana (2017-08-15). "Meshmixer Saves Lives. Part 2: Bionic Vision and Patient Education". Autodeskresearch. Retrieved 2017-08-31.

[1]