Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 January	5 January >

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 redirect to Marko Jovanović. OK, thanks to pagemoves and redirect and edits whatnot it's not clear to me which article is being discussed here. I am assuming that the topic is a musician whose article was just redirected to the dab page so I'll leave this as-is. Consensus is in favour of deletion with or without redirect, but I see no reason to disturb the redirect currently present so it looks like the status quo satisfies the desires of participants. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Jovanovic[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. No coverage in independent reliable sources found. The BLPPROD was invalid, so I have removed it. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Marko Jovanovic (musician) to restore disambig page. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not move an article during AfD, the script used for closing AFDs will often not be able to handle the situation, cf. e.g. Special:Permalink/819556440#Move during AfD discussion. The article was moved back to Marko Jovanovic. Sam Sailor 08:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, and also no sources available to establish the subject's notability. Fails WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This really should be a disambig page. Tempo21 (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability and no sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @FloridaArmy: There are three self-published sources as external links. Sam Sailor 08:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a copyright violation and recreate Tempo21's original redirect to the DAB Marko Jovanović as a categorised {{R to diacritic}}. This is a simple case of the page being hijacked. Twice. First hijack attempt was a copy-paste from Draft:Marko Jovanovic, a "Montenegrin football fitness coach and former football player" (born 1982) on 30 August 2017, correctly reverted by Jmcgnh with a subsequent comment in the draft. The second hijack attempt started on 6 November 2017 and is the current "passionate composer, producer and multimedia artist". Not only is there a lack of any credible claim of significance, it is also a copy-paste from subjects own Wordpress page (Earwig's Copyvio Detector reports 93%) that lacks a compatible free license, hence this is a copyright violation. The article was of course not eligible for deletion under proposed deletion of biographies of living people, but that's a minor - and common - mistake compared to not detecting the copyright violation. I will tag the article with {{Db-g12}}. Sam Sailor 08:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth McKenzie[edit]

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

Was DePRODed without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I explained the issue perfectly clearly when deprodding. How about taking a bit of time to think before making such a knee-jerk deletion nomination? The prize for which this author was shortlisted is the top prize for woman authors, and one of the top handful of prizes for any author, in the UK. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the many reviews available to anyone who takes a few seconds to look, for example by clicking on "news" above, for example [1], [2], [3], [4] etc., as well as the shortlisting for the Women's Prize for Fiction that obviously spells notability to anyone with any clue. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her book The Portable Veblen received multiple reviews (in addition to those listed above, also New York Times, LA Times, NPR, and others). She therefore qualifies under WP:AUTHOR #3 (produced a work that is the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews). Also nominated for National Book Award, California Book Awards and as mentioned before, Women's Prize for Fiction. Hzh (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in agreement with those above. I have done some work on the article so it now lists all three of her books and links to reviews of them. Tacyarg (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When the first three pages of a Google search includes all of these, it is not only obvious that the subject is notable but also that the prodder and nominator haven't looked very hard: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. --Michig (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (what is all this white fluffy stuff:)), meets WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG, books are well known ie. The Portable Veblen held by around 1000 libraries, books have been reviewed by lots of sources, as listed above. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep nominated for one of the most prestigious literature prizes for female authors should, in itself, be sufficient, yet above sources provided should be 1000% more than required to turn this into a speedy keep. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that the administrator who nominated this would have withdrawn by now to save Wikipedia the embarrassment of having a deletion template on the article about the only person ever to have been shortlisted for this prize whose notability is supposedly in doubt. But, then again, pigs might fly. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, ps. i have created seperate wikiarticles on 3 of her books that each meet WP:NBOOK. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Hayden Jr.[edit]

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

It fails WP:BLP as an WP:NOTE as through a cursory search through google throws up only one result from St. Louis Post Dispatch and that is only in passing. I know he just became Police Commisioner of St. Louis but that does not mean he is notable yet. I suggest wait till he has more sources released. Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while the head of police of a major city, such as Hayden, can be notable, they are not default notable, and we need more coverage than what is present here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Chief of police of a major city with a police force of 1,300 officers. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Police chiefs (even of large departments) are not usually notable. Of course this could change if he has some major accomplishment while he is chief. But on the job for only a week, I'm sure he hasn't accomplished much.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The policy ATD prevails over the policy DEL8 when there is a merge target that allows a policy-required preservation of content contributions. Unscintillating (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Metropolitan Police Department, City of St. Louis#Departmental History or Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, City of St. Louis without prejudice to the content contributors of the chosen article continuing to improve the encyclopedia This is a significant topic, already in the encyclopedia in several places. Unscintillating (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD nom was place 1 hour and 30 minutes after the article was created, on the day the new police chief was appointed. Checking on the first page of Google web I now see the following articles in:

riverfronttimes.com
3 articles in stltoday.com
stlamerican.com
2 articles in fox2now.com
stlmag.com
bizjournals.com
kmov.com

I added an AP-written article from the Lexington Herald Leader to Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, City of St. Louis. Unscintillating (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Individual clearly has no encyclopedic notability. The St. Louis Police Dept. is arguably notable, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Being hired as the head of a notable organization does not make a living person notable enough to have their own page (basically WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E). All the coverage of him used to argue notability is really about the police department and his appointment to run it. It would be sufficient to mention him as the current chief on the police department page, and add any relevant detail about his tenure there. Until he is possibly notable for just this one thing, this unnecessary biography should be deleted per WP:BLP. Shelbystripes (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shelbystripes: Since BLP1E is an argument to merge, was there anything else in WP:BLP that applies? This is asking the same question as "why delete the edit history?" Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: I'm confused. Why is BLP1E an argument to merge? I didn't argue for merge, I argued for deletion. I said I wouldn't object to someone mentioning him on the St. Louis police page if someone wants to, bur that's it. An entire biography on him shouldn't be merged into that page . BLP1E isn't necessarily an argument for merge, it's an argument for deleting a BLP. I mean, BLP1E says that it "is usually better to merge the information" in one particular case, why even say that if BLP1E = merge as you said? Shelbystripes (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The topic here is not a low-profile individual, so that one point alone eliminates WP:BLP1E. But ignoring the points that the topic here is not a low-profile individual, and the announcement only partially qualifies as an event, the rest of the sentence you quoted in WP:BLP1E reads,

"In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article."

So the content is merged (subject to WP:DUE), attribution is retained in the edit history, and the topic itself is redirected. Also, policy is to WP:PRESERVE. How does deletion of the edit history improve the encyclopedia? Unscintillating (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am seeing in depth coverage by reliable sources. --RAN (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant media coverage of his appointment to the post. While not every police chief of moderately large cities is notable, the unrest following the Ferguson shooting and trial makes this position of particular note. --Flipster14191 (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Futures[edit]

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

NN musical group failing all 12 elements of WP:BAND. One could argue that there are few obscure pubs that could possibly be interpreted as passing #1 or GNG, but at the end of the day, you've got 4 no-name musicians without a notable label, self-releasing recordings on their own website. Toddst1 (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as has rs coverage such as Daily Nebraskan and Punk News. Think Dreams of Water, their album, may have charted but will check up on that. For searching note that they changed their name from the original Happy Body Slow Brain. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to weak keep as could not find any evidence of charting, at least in the U.S., unlikely to be charting elsewhere Atlantic306 (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note re: The Daily Nebraskan. It is not sourced to that publication, but to, rather, The Dailyer Nebraskan, which is a university publication. School papers are not good sources for notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to fail WP:BAND; searching for band (under old or new name) did not yield reliable sources, just press releases or online music sites/blogs (I don't think stuff like punknews.org is a reliable source but there's not even much of that available). Unknown bands with self-published albums lack encyclopedic notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Punknews is a reliable source as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources Atlantic306 (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Shelbystripes. (BTW, we are NOT the same person; because of our similar user names about a year ago someone mistook me for this editor). Re: Punknews, yes it is a reliable source for the punk scene, but not all coverage therein is significant. In this case, it is merely a list of performance dates. The coverage I found is small time/trivial and merely confirms existence rather than significant coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hrishikesh Chury[edit]

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

An advertorially toned BLP for a playback singer. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is PR-driven, passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Created by a sock (Special:Contributions/Divshirsat12). Both sock and master are currently indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rohanpednekar38. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally closed this as "soft delete". However, I reversed my closure upon further review. This article has been declined for both speedy deletion and proposed deletion in the past for various reasons, so I think it would be helpful to get more eyes on this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage in reliable sources (such as they are) is neither sufficiently persistent or of the depth required to pass the basic norms of WP:ANYBIO. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC is upcoming not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cutting through the drama imported from itwiki, there is no consensus on whether the sources cited in the article are enough to satisfy the GNG. – Joe (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cadèmia Siciliana[edit]

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

Heavily canvassed article, violating WP:COI. Definitely fails WP:GNG, out of 5 external sources, just 2 are actually independent though local and way too recent, thus failing WP:NOTNEWS. Finally it definitely fails WP:ORG. Talkpage discussion stales on the false shifting of notability from the language to anyone dealing with it. Vituzzu (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am an administrator on Commons. The image Logo Cadèmia Siciliana, Inc..png is a copyvio from cademiasiciliana.org, I've just deleted it on Commons. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 22:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I solved the licensing issues by contacting the authors, and reuploaded it. -- dapal^{(write me @)} 21:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is getting ridiculous. I contacted the author of Logo Cadèmia Siciliana, Inc..png, who kindly published a page specifying the license, which is amongst the ones accepted by Wikipedia, and it still gets a deletion warning? This seems like a groundless, gratuitous attack to me. --dapal^{(write me @)} 23:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I noticed the image was back up, I followed the link to make sure all was in order with image copyright, and clearly it was - so for someone to then slap a deletion notice on it beggars belief. What is going on here?! Surely it's not asking too much that the policies be applied in a coherent manner.πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 23:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issue solved, it seems like it was a genuine mistake! --dapal^{(write me @)} 09:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackCat: I am yet to understand how an image without license can affect notability of a subject (academic society for this matter). Should we delete every article that have its image deleted on commons? –Ammarpad (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm an admin on scn.wiki and have been following the work of the Cademia for a while because of my interest in the Sicilian language - but I would not have thought that that of itself would qualify as a conflict of interest. Furthermore, despite a few accusations flying around, I did not write any of the articles on the Cademia in any of scn.wiki, it.wiki or en.wiki, nor am I a member of the Cademia, nor do I have any role within the Cademia. I follow what they do from afar (from Australia to be precise). From what I can gather, the Cademia does exist, that is not in doubt, and its board comprises experts in the field of linguistics. Also the claim above that only 2 of 5 external sources are independent appears to be false. Apart from producing a proposal for a Sicilian orthography, it is on the public record that both Firefox and Facebook have been working directly with Cademia to have Sicilian included within their offerings, and that gives some weight to the Cademia's standing, at least in the IT field. The last point I would like to make, is that a number of wikipedians (from it.wiki) have weighed in with the deletion notice, but each time offering conflicting reasons, in at least one case, an absurd reason, which does suggest something is afoot on that front (and one needs only to read the talk page on the it.wiki article on the Sicilian language to gauge the antipathy directed at Sicilian from some quarters of the it.wiki community). I don't really like to bring up such distasteful goings on here, but I believe it is part of the milieu of the present exercise. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 00:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll abstain from commenting about conspirationism, though it must be noted that who started the AfD (me!) speaks Sicilian on a daily basis.

Existence doesn't imply notability. Yep, only 2 out of 5 sources are independent: generally, interviews cannot be considered independent. Finally having no external sources is hard to tell "that both Firefox and Facebook have been working directly with Cademia" since translations at both organisation are volunteer-based, open and collaborative. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This could use additional participation. All the independent sources are in Italian.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I fail to see how the referenced interviews are not independent, given it's not proven that the interviewees and the interviewers are linked. I consider all the references given as third-party. I do agree it's a small and relatively new organization, but it passes WP:RECENT. We should also consider that its field of action is superspecialized: we can't expect massive international coverage, given that Sicilian is a minority language. This should also lower the quantity of citations needed for being considered having significant coverage. I also just found one more reference to the organization, related to CLDR, which I'm going to add to the article. --dapal^{(write me @)} 23:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised by you opinion since you're pushing Cademia through en.wiki. Anyway, no "lowering of GNG for anyone dealing with minority languages" can be inferred from policies, still, lowering cannot mean "zeroing" or "five mentions are enough". --Vituzzu (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Don't I have the same voting right as others? If I keep working on Cadèmia-related articles it's just because I believe it's worthwhile. --dapal^{(write me @)} 08:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep English sources for this must be very scarce but in itself an organization for promoting minority language should have an article on educational project Wikipedia. Two of the sources are agree upon to be truly independent and this is indicator of existence of more–Ammarpad (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interviews may be suspect if used to support statements about a subject ("I don’t make money from Russia" does not help to establish that the interviewee never took Russian money), but they are fine for establishing notability. --Lambiam 12:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AfD are serious matters, not the place to joke in random ways. Interviews on a bunch of local online news sites aren't both independent (since they actually just report subjects' views) and are definitely not a significant coverage. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just state that I disagree on both counts. --Lambiam 09:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia:Recentism, local sources, cross-wiki spam and evidently not notable association, sources not considerable, Wikipedia:Canvassing between users like @Pippu d'angelo: and, for example, Dapal and the author. A encyclopedia is a serious thing, not a box for personal POV.--Kirk39 (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As other just said: cross-wiki SPAM, recentism, local sources, evidently not notable association. A private no-profit founded by the author of the article, which has no authorithy above Sicilian language, at any level, and is not recognised by anybody in Sicily, in Italy, in Europe nor in the whole world. Wikipedia is not a place for doing promotion. By the way the accusation of Pippu d'Angelo are rather disgusting. I fully support the Italian regional languages and I think they should be preserved and teached in the public schools; I like Sicilian language and I actually think the Cadèmia Siciliana is a good initiative. But as a Wikipedian I must stand aginst SPAM and promotional content on Wikipedia. I send back the accusations, asking why a sysop on scn.wiki don't even know the basic guidelines of the project, uploading copyrighted material on Commons and writing blatantly inacceptable articles on scn.wiki. You're discrediting the whole project and preventing the Sicilian speakers to have a quality, reliable encyclopaedia in their language. --Phyrexian ɸ 17:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You and Kirk need to re-read the recentism policy, quite clearly, the contents of this article does not come within the ambit of that policy in any way, shape or form. As to it.wiki's antipathy directed at Sicilian, one needs only to read the Lingua siciliana talk page on it.wiki to know what I'm talking about. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 22:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you need te re-read the policies linked by Vituzzo opening this page: WP:COI; WP:GNG; WP:NOTNEWS; WP:ORG. And also to (re?)read WP:5P, expecially the fisrt and fourth. About your nasty accusations: do you read the nicknames Phyrexian, Kirk or Vituzzu in the Lingua siciliana talk page on it.wiki? I do not. --Phyrexian ɸ 23:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oh wow. This got really intense. I have a genuine question, I think notability guidelines on the Italian Wikipedia are more strict than English language one. Am I correct? I've noticed that the Keepers are all EN Wikipedians and the Deleters are all IT Wikipedians. I personally have witnessed those stricter standards there. This is NOT an attack, I am 100% curious and I don't know where to ask such a question in order to seek consensus. I think everyone needs to remember to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, clearly everyone here is interested in Sicilian, we can reach compromises. Furthermore, a lot of us are part of WikiProject Sicily and Sicilian language related material, we can collaborate to reach balanced consensus driven content that is encyclopedic. I'm trying to do that as well with the Draft:Sicilian_orthography and your input would be appreciated. Paolorausch (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You honestly think the topic "Cadèmia Siciliana" (aka your private organization) is relevant enought that should be described in an encyclopaedia? So why you're not trying to push it in the Treccani or the Encyclopædia Britannica? This sound to be completly absurd? Yeah, the same seem to me. Or you're just trying to get some free visibility? If my questions sound rethorical to you, assuming good faith is quite hard in this case. --Phyrexian ɸ 23:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. I've been editing and contributing to Sicilian related content for over 10 years now, please don't attack me personally. Yes, I would appreciate if you assume GF and if everyone here stopped making ad hominem attacks. That IS a wikipedia policy WP:5P4. The conversation is about notability, if I didn't think that just like other related topics that have passed notability this article wasn't notable I would support deletion. But on the English Wikipedia as several people have said the notability guidelines here are consistent with this organisation's notability. The guidelines to be included in Treccani and EB are different than Wikipedia, I'm sure you're quite aware of this fact. As cool as it would be to see Minority Language non-profits and Regulatory agencies in EB and Treccani, I'm sure you're aware that their scope is much more limited. CSFLS, ARLeF etc don't even have Treccani articles and those are government recognised and supported institutions. Although I respect your point that CS is not important enough for Treccani or EB, their objectives are not Wikipedia Notability Guidelines and it's not a valid comparison in the context of this AfD Debate.Paolorausch (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Not relevant. It doesn't add anything to both Sicilian and Italian culture, and frankly I don't see how does this page can look anything different from a promotional flyer. We are bordering the speedy deletion. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 08:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete The keep arguments are either tainted by involvement in promoting this organisation or wishful thinking /assertions. The analysis of the sources are that this isn't notable and all the accusations of its defenders do not take away the air of spam. If you want this kept you gave to demonstrate that this clearly meets the GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Sicilian language#Sicily - I'm at a disadvantage because I don't speak Italian, but did run the titles through Google translate, and visited each site. What I've seen doesn't suggest there's enough coverage to satisfy WP:ORG. I don't see anything that looks like indepth coverage such as foundational history, and none of the sources appear to be journalistic entities such as Italian newspapers. I Googled several of the top Italian newspapers with the organization's name, and found nothing. I'd like to see some coverage in the Italian mainstream press; short of that, my vote is to merge and redirect content to Sicilian language#Sicily. One other note - this is a fairly new group and has only presented its orthographical proposal for the Sicilian language - maybe WP:TOOSOON applies also, until it is accepted and put into use. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs played by KAZR Lazer 103.3[edit]

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

Uncited list of indiscriminate, non-notable information. Killer Moff (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New to this process, not sure how to send messages. But why is this being considered for deletion? I get this info from a website and constantly listening to the station and put the info in a spreadsheet. I do not know how to list the sources. I made this page as I would be interested in what songs a radio station plays and it didn't need to be on the main page. Since i have been following it for a few months now I thought it would be nice to have if other were interested. Any help on how to make this page suitable to say would be appreciated. If this is not the right place to write this please message me and let me know how to message. Tourist2088 (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tourist2088, please see WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE (point 4) and WP:INTERESTING. If you can't find an independent reliable source that states every song played on the radio station so that other editors can verify that what you say is true, then it shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Richard3120. I get my info from listening constantly, watching the recently played on their website as well as this site here, http://onlineradiobox.com/us/kazr/playlist/?cs=us.kazr , but that is only foe the last 7 days. I put that in a google spreadsheet. Is that reliable enough? Not sure how to link sources. I'll give it a try. Tourist2088 (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't, unfortunately, because we have no way of verifying the contents of your spreadsheet – please don't misunderstand me, I'm sure you're not making anything up, but ultimately your word is all we have to go on. And the list is never going to be complete, unless you have been listening from the very first day the station started broadcasting. Richard3120 (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't the purpose of Wikipedia at all and can never be complete by any means. And if you lose interest in this, we have a lot of useless information nobody knows what to do with. This is a rock station playing songs associated with the format with artists known in the format. An average reader can easily decode this station is a 'no-play zone' for Maroon 5, Britney Spears, Bach or Carrie Underwood without an Excel spreadsheet confirming it. Nate • (chatter) 19:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be useful. That's why I made it. When I visited the page it had very little info I cared to read about. It is just a list of what they have played. Not what they are going to play. But they way they are, it probably is going to to be what play. They drove me crazy with their slogan "Everything That Rocks" then constantly seemed to play the same songs over and over. I just wanted to see in writing what "rocks". I figured the more info the better. Richard3120 I understand what you mean. But still, now I am just a sad tourist again. Tourist2088 (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that Mrschimpf has removed all the info I found interesting from the KAZR. Showing me that I have wasted a lot of time contributing. I thought it was nice to have some new info every month to look forward to. When I saw it was gone, that all sadness of my recent depression came back. I didn't see myself losing interest in this anytime, but even if I did. It still would have been nice to see some of what happened. I don't know if anyone else saw that info as useful or interesting. But I did and it brought me a little joy. Sadly made me feel like I had a purpose. And to see months of work taken away in a second has been devastating. Sorry I wasted everyone's times. But most of all I'm sorry I wasted mine. I'll stop. If this page is still around in a few days I'll start working on it again. But I have lost interest for now. Thank you. Sorry. Tourist2088 (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record. This was for people looking to hear rock music from bands like Trivium, Anthrax, Strapping Young Lad, Rancid, and other hard rock/punk artists, that won't be found here. Not the pop artists mentioned above. I thought that was obvious. I really like the sort-able columns Wikipedia offers. That was helpful to me. In seeing what this station plays. Tourist2088 (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't bands you'd be particularly likely to hear on any commercial "mainstream rock" station anywhere — it's not a question of KAZR being somehow uniquely recalcitrant about what it plays, because radio formats are tightly managed across the board. There's a "core" list of artists deemed acceptable by professional radio consultants for airplay on each conventional radio format, and no commercial radio station anywhere in the entire United States diverges from its format's core list very much at all. Generally, you would need to look to non-commercial radio stations, such as college radio or "listener-supported" public stations, to hear artists that haven't been deemed to fit a standardized commercial radio format. Yes, it sucks — but you need to blame the general nationwide phenomenon of radio homogenization, not KAZR itself. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Per WP:NOT#DIR and per Richard3120 and Nate. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:55 on January 5, 2018 (UTC)

How long is this going to take to be deleted? Can it just be erased now along with everything I have contributed. I don't know how many more times I can take being told i am wrong. I have been feeling better recently. Took some time off from work to relax. Do this, now have all this happen. I feel like I will be lucky if I make it to tomorrow. But if I still feel this way then. What the point? Please just delete it so I don't have to think about it anymore. Please Tourist2088 (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFD discussions normally stay open for a minimum of seven days except in exceptional circumstances. Richard's right, you need to not take it so personally. Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE as stated by Richard3120. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tourist2088, please don't take this personally, nobody's having a go at you, it's just that verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core tenets. You can carry on your spreadsheet at home, and Excel also has a sortable column function, if that helps you out. By all means feel free to contribute to the Wikipedia articles about the bands you like, if you can provide information from reliable sources such as newspapers, music magazines (both print and online) – just not from social media or blogs.

The administrator will make a decision on the article when enough comments have been made, and there appears to be a clear consensus. Richard3120 (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE. This kind of thing is definitely not what Wikipedia is for. Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused on what an Active Rock station is. I assumed they play mostly "Active" bands. But this station plays a lot for Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin. That is probably why they report as both Active and Mainstream. But still they claim to play "Everything" that rocks and I just wanted to provide a list of what they have played that "Rocks" since I could not find one. So I went out to get this info on my own. I used to see may "Lists" on wikipedia, but, looking for them now, they must have been deleted as I have not been able to find many i have seen in the past. Would it be okay if i had this list on my userpage? So I can use the template thing it has also have links to all the songs, artists, and albums? That is really cool info to have in one spot. If its not allowed in general can I have it on my userpage? I was reading the guidlines and it seemed like it would be frowned upon and possible deleted. As some of you may have guessed reading and fully understanding is not a strength of mine. I am a little unstable, very sensitive and take things personally easily. I understand no one was "going at me" but that is just the way it seemed. Would it really hurt anything if i had this on my user page as a work in progress that will never be finished? Tourist2088 (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this policy, the answer would almost certainly be a no on that request, I'm afraid, specifically because the data wouldn't be intended to be included in an article (since the article itself looks bound for deletion). That said, and this goes back to the comments I made on your Talk page a couple of days ago, there may be other sites out there that run the same software where you could either store the information in this format or even use it in another regard. I haven't the faintest idea which sites or even whether they exist, I hasten to add, but Wikipedia is far from the only wiki out there online. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that is what I took from that policy as well. Reading all of these "Wikipedia is not..." drives me to see that Wikipedia is not as great as I thought. If it was on my userspace i could possibly work it into something that is acceptable someday. But I would try to get to work one day. Tourist2088 (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a little bit of scope if you were actively working on it being something acceptable someday, in that you can create a draft. Drafts tend only to get listed for deletion if they've not been worked on in 6 months or so. The issue, though, would still be whether creating a draft of a list which isn't encyclopedic (while "Wikipedia is not" plenty of things, it's first and foremost an encyclopedia, and that's the starting point for working out what it isn't, if that makes sense) would be a smart move. Given that it's highly unlikely for policies to change sufficiently to allow this to be a viable inclusion, it may be taken as "thumbing your nose" at consensus. What would be wrong with simply keeping the work on your hard drive and updating it there, pending the appearance of another suitable home for it? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with keeping it on my hard drive. I am still working on this in the spreadsheet. But, its a boring looking spreadsheet. Like I have said I just really like the presentation on Wikipedia, with links to the song, artist, album articles. If i made a draft I would definitely work on it at least once a month to update it. I would make attempt to make it into a real article. Also, not that i care too much about radio stations. But since i listen to this station and say they play everything that rocks. I would just like to see a list of what "Rocks". I understand a list certainly does not deserve its own article it would be nice if on the KAZR page it had the list of songs played in a "click on to Show" template, like some albums that have bonus tracks. It would be like an appendix of sorts. I don't vist many websites so I really am not looking for another place to put this info. I did kind of start a Facebook page, but the info had a boring presentation. Tourist2088 (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So if it's the aesthetics of the spreadsheet versus Wikipedia, there are bound to be other sites out there which will enable you to display this information however you want to. I appreciate that you don't particularly want to display it anywhere other than Wikipedia, but the fact remains that it really isn't "Wikipedia-ish", or encyclopedic if you prefer. The fact that you'd be working on the draft is all well and good, but the other issue with drafts is that they have to stand some kind of a chance of turning into articles, and as per the comments above, this one really doesn't, since there's no way of verifying the research (essentially what you've been doing, which can be an issue) you've done on the matter. So even if you worked on it for hours every day, that's highly unlikely to change. As far as your goal of "finding out what rocks" in line with the station's slogan, there are probably a couple of points to make there as well. The first is that there are articles on both active rock and mainstream rock, which the article on the station suggests are the kinds of music it plays. The first of those gives a reasonable list of bands such stations would play (the second doesn't, for some reason), so there's at least part of the answer already. Those articles won't give 100% of the playlist of every conceivable radio station playing a given format, but neither should they, since it wouldn't be encyclopedic. The second point is that, as far as I'm following you, you can find out what the station considers to be "everything that rocks" by listening to it as you do. Looking at the data you've already assembled, you've got a more than reasonable list of what the station thinks "rocks", so if the list was (at least originally) an attempt at answering the question of "What do they mean by their slogan?", I'd say you know by now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read those two articles and the active rock article helps a little but also goes against what the station plays. Sometimes what they say rocks surprises me. Which is why I started the list. Too bad their isn't a companion site called Wikilists. A place where all the lists that get deleted could go. I guess the mainstream article doesn't give examples because there are too many. The problem with listening to this station find out what rocks is difficult because it always seems to be the same songs most over 20 years old. Tourist2088 (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by DGG WP:G11 and WP:G12, and deleted a second time by There'sNoTime as WP:A7. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Black Jaguar-White Tiger Foundation[edit]

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

Promotional in tone. As written, does not satisfy general notability or corporate notability. Google search finds that there is considerable controversy about this organization. If this article is to be kept, the controversy should be addressed in the article. (Tagging will not be sufficient.)

As written, this article has no independent references. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed the unsourced fluff from the article, and it doesn't seem we're left with much to keep. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 06:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There does seem to be a fair amount of usable material on the web (although smothered by a big fluffy mass of Facebook and Youtube). Careful treatment of controversial reputation has clearly not been attempted by the author so far, so yes, cutting it down to bare bones is presumably the right way to go for now, but overall notability remains IMO. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. When it sounds promotional and has SPCV hallmarks, its time to run a copyvio-check: text has been copied from the foundation's About page. The article section "The sanctuary" is a verbatim copy-paste. The History section took me a few minutes to figure out. At first it looks like close paraphrasing of the "Who Are We?" section on the About page. But the broken English suggests it is a machine translation. And sure enough, it is a Google Translation of the section Kezdetek from the article on Hungarian Wikipedia. (I do not speak Hungarian, but judging from the Google Translation of the article on hu.wp it could be a c-v/close paraphrasing case in its own right.) I see nothing worth salvaging in any revision, so revdel and rebuilding the article seems without purpose; I am going to tag it for speedy deletion. I am hatting here below the sources PaleoNeonate provided on the article talk page, if anyone wishes to start a new draft. Sam Sailor 07:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Added to Talk:Black Jaguar-White Tiger Foundation in this diff:

Orde, Elena (12 August 2016). "The horrible truth behind Lewis Hamilton's seemingly cute Snapchat of tigers can't be ignored". The Independent.
Horton, Helena (11 August 2016). "Lewis Hamilton criticised by Peta for 'foolish' Snapchat tiger selfies". The Telegraph.
Bishop, Rachel (15 August 2016). "Incredible moment zookeeper narrowly avoids getting mauled by leopard after heroic tiger leaps to his rescue". The Mirror.
Charlton, Corey (9 December 2017). "Amazing moment lioness floors the man who raised her in a heartwarming act of affection". The Sun.
Golgowski, Nina (16 August 2016). "Watch A Tiger Save His Handler From A Charging Leopard's Sneak Attack". Huffington Post.
McCormack, Kirsty (5 November 2015). "Lewis Hamilton has no fear as he cuddles up to a jaguar in Mexico". Express.co.uk.
Harris, Sarah (3 November 2015). "Heavy Petting". Vogue.
Kerns, Ben (6 August 2015). "Khloe Kardashian Sparks Outrage By Handling Tiger Cubs — Again". The Dodo.
"Is the Black Jaguar-White Tiger Foundation legitimate?". Quora.

Some of those may of course be considered unreliable. Considering the sensationalist nature of most, it's possible that the article violates WP:NOTNEWS? —Paleo Neonate – 00:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 09:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Totaljobs Group[edit]

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

No real coverage. Look-like promotional page. Fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. WP:Before wasn't conducted properly - very high penetration in the recruitment sector, well known brand all be it under the redirect Totaljobs, loads of refs in the article and easy to find on google. Szzuk (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability as they are based on company announcements or run-of-the-mill business listings or rely on interviews/quotations or company produced information. Fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Perhaps Szzuk can provide a coupld of references to support their !vote - I'm happy to change my !vote if I've missed something. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not an argument for deletion when the ATD are applicable. Unscintillating (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue Given ATD (the owner has an article), if nominator wants to pursue a notability argument, the correct venue is a "merge-to" discussion on the talk page of the article. Unscintillating (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- the sourcing for this article is garbage, most of it comes from the company website.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Partly per the consensus and partly per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sohail Asif Qureshi[edit]

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

Not enough coverage. Written like a resume. Fails WP:NSCHOLAR. Störm (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially a CV of an average professor. – Joe (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 (Google scholar search for author SA-Qureshi shows citation counts of 837, 403, 352, ... with 27 papers cited over 100 times each and an h-index of roughly 54, well over enough for this criterion, and spot-checking found nothing by other authors with similar names mixed in) and WP:PROF#C3 (the Jafferali Lalji Endowed Professorship despite the difficulty of verifying this from independent sources). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Hold on. Of the top twenty results for "SA Qureshi", all the papers with full names attached are by different people (Sajjad A. Qureshi, Sheeraz A. Qureshi, Shakeel A. Qureshi, Saeed A. Qureshi). I only found two papers by Sohail A. Qureshi with more than 100 citations [16][17] and Web of Science calculates his h-index as 8.

With that in mind, I'm not convinced that the purported endowed professorship at Aga Khan University is a marker of sufficient impact or source coverage. Indeed, I can't find a single independent source that mentions the existence of a Jafferali Lalji Professor at AKU. The article says he held an endowed professorship between 2004 and 2010, but this source (cited in the article) describes him has an associate professor in 2007. This one (2016) doesn't mention anything about it and neither does Qureshi himself on his LinkedIn page. – Joe (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my comment. The remaining citations are borderline and (without independent verification) so is the endowment. I'm not willing to change my opinion to delete at this point, but clearly the justification I used for a keep opinion needs reappraisal. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Eppstein. Mar4d (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject of the article apparently wants it to be deleted, so even if there is marginal notability editors may want to bear in mind WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. – Joe (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he is not so notable we should go against his wishes and keep this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that the notability appears borderline should we honor the BLP deletion request?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 14:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the person demonstrates notability, the request to delete from living person should be respected. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ for now; meets WP:PROF. There's no proof that the subject wants the article deleted; just the word of an editor. I think the evidence needs to be stronger that the request comes from the subject himself. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: How does he meet WP:PROF, though? – Joe (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet WP:PROF (i.e., the average professor test described in the guideline). Not seeing any significant secondary coverage either. Looking at the author publications, there's nothing that really stands out as beyond average, especially someone who started their career about 35 years ago. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing on the page shows general notability. Quick check using Google scholar shows that citation is very low. My very best wishes (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of mosques in Pakistan. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mosques of Multan[edit]

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

Not much useful nor well-developed with no sourcing. Either delete it because it fails WP:GNG or may redirect it to List of mosques in Pakistan. Störm (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the List of mosques in Pakistan. sami ^talk 22:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Lists of Mosques in Pakistan per Sami and Migrate any useful information from this article to enhance that List as it is a valuable resource. That said, the nom is correct that none of the information in this article up for AfD is in ANY WAY cited, so is considered at best suspect if migrated over. -Markeer 01:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Well, it looks like consensus is that this is not notable. The confusion about whether the sole argument cited in favour of notability applies to the article topic or to some other journal with the same name does not help. Redirects at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current Pediatric Research[edit]

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

An open access journal listed by Beall as predatory. Not in ISI, not in DOAJ, no impact factor, not indexed in PubMed. And we can't really say any of that because there are no reliable independent sources about the journal other than Beall's list and mirrors. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~I lean keep here.~~ It may not be indexed in PUBMEB, but it's indexed in "Scopus, SCImago, Elsevier Biobase, Compendex, IndMedica, FLUIDEX, Geobase, Excerpta Medica, EMBASE, J-Gate, EMbiology, Biosis Previews, Biosis, Electronic Database, Chemical Abstracts, EBSCO Publishing, Science Edition, CINAHL." according to the journal website. Scopus alone is usually worthy of inclusion.

If we don't trust the journal website, then MIAR: 0971-9032 lists Scopus, EMBASE and SCImago. Gonna @DGG: here. It has a ridiculously low impact metric however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to delete. Too many signs of predatoriness, basic information cannot even be trusted, and a journal of utterly low impact. All of this combined voids any presumption of notability we may grant to journals normally. Scopus may usually be selective enough, but this is clearly a case where they either erred, or that the journal got hijacked after inclusion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Indexing in Scopus is sufficient. their coverage is sometimes not very exclusive, but our coverage also should be a s broad as possible, because the information on journals helps the evaluation of references using them. I do point out, though, that most of the others listed are unselective. I'm not sure where the got the impact factor given on their website ( 1.63); it's not high for a journal in this field, but it's not ridiculously low . DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the SJR, which lists a total of something like 8 citations in the last year. I call that ridiculously low for a medical journal. I don't believe the 1.63 impact factor, since it's not covered by Journal Citation Reports. It has to be one of the fake impact factors, or a plain and simply lie. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indexing in SCOPUS is not, and cannot be, sufficient, because SCOPUS does not give us any commentary on the quality of the journal. It's not in ISI, not in DOAJ, not in JCR, not in PubMed (wich is a definite problem for a medical journal) and, as randykitty correctly identified, we can't say any of that because the only independent source that has anything to say about it at all, is Beall. How can we have an WP:NPOV article on what is, according to all the evidence, a fake journal, when the only admissible source is presence in an index?

And this is getting a bit weird. The journal homepage is with a company called Allied Academies, based in London. The index page says the ISSN is linked to an Indian publisher called Scientific Publishers. The "source" link in the index gores to pedatricresearch.info, which doesn't exist. The SJR for the Indian journal is 0.12, whereas this journal claims 1.63. Literally nothing about this checks out. DGG, please check it yourself. It is possibly a hijacked journal, I don't know, but it is pretty clear to me that we need secondary sources, not primary, for exactly that reason. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indices like Scopus don't need to give commentary, this is about selectivity. Scopus also computes the SCImago Journal Rank, for what it's worth. In this case, I think Scopus got swindled by crap, or that the journal got hijacked after inclusion.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia is about NPOV. This article is a mashup of at least two different journals, and it is impossible to find out what belongs where because there are zero independent secondary sources. Simple test for you: reviewing the indexes, who publishes the journal? The ISSN on the linked homepage brings up records to a similarly titled journal published by a different company on a different continent. How does being in SCOPUS help us to fix that? Guy (Help!) 14:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no POV problems in the article. The publisher is Allied Academies as can be verified by the journal's website. Scientific Publishers of India is likely the original publisher, and then something happened afterwards, like the journal or imprint got sold. The issue is that WP:V is compromised in a lot of other places, and that WP:N is not established. It's quite likely Scopus inclusion comes from before whenever Allied Academies got involved, and it's just never been reviewed since.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you just did is textbook WP:OR. SCOPUS is a reliable source, it says the journal is published by Scientific Publishers of India. We have two primary sources, SCOPUS and the website, and SCOPUS, taken at face value, is talking about a completely different journal - any inference to the contrary is entirely our own conjecture. it might be a hijack or the journal might have been sold, we don't know. In fact we can't say the journal is in SCOPUS because the only source we have for that is the website, which also gives an impact factor that does not check out. This is precisely why Wikipedia policy has always been to use reliable independent secondary sources. What the article says about the journal, comes solely from its own website (WP:SPS). What the one independent directory source says, conflicts in important ways. We cannot say what is true because there are no independent sources to guide us. It's a supposedly notable journal and we can't verify the most basic facts. The ISSN tracks to a completely different publisher and website in the directories. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR? Please. I haven't written anything in the article based on any conjecture. Databases can be outdated. The current publisher is Allied Academies. It used to be Scientific Publishers. Worldcat (that is your where your ISSN information takes you) is a notoriously bad database when it comes to keeping up to date. I don't know when the journal changed publisher, but I'd guess it's fairly recent (see below). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The part I can not verify is Scientific Publishers of India ever having published it. The website of the apparently relevant firm, [18], shows it as a publisher and distributor and book dealer of books, mainly textbooks, which also distributes but not publishes journals. The journals part of their catalog contains most of the well known Indian journals, published by a number of different publishers, most of which are long established and reputable. They do not currently distribute this journal--nor would they have any reason to, for it is an entirely web-based Open access journal, and they handle paid titles. If Scopus lists them as a publisher of this journal, they are referring to issues prior to v 9, 1991, and may have mistaken the distributor from the publisher. It's not an obvious case of hijacking, there are not two titles, and the information in the article appears valid. (On examining the Allied website, this is one of the more respectable of their journals. Looking at the journal, I've seen much worse. The material is minor, but not ridiculous.). I continue to say keep. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Academies guidelines here mention Scientific Publishers of India. Which makes me believe this is some type of imprint, or a rebranding of division of Scientific Publishers of India that happened as some point after 2014. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, that is the publisher, according to several indexes. And of course we have no idea because there are no independent secondary sources other than Beall. Incidentally, what is your view of the likely merit of a medical journal that's not PubMed indexed? Guy (Help!) 19:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems Allied Academies are owned by the same guy that owns OMICS. That's explain a lot about the current lack of reliability of anything surrounding this journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Its Scimago listing uses a slightly different spelling [19]. They confirm its bottom-rank citations and also list the publisher as being Scientific Publishers of India. But this case shows why I'm skeptical of "it's listed in an index" as a notability standard; beyond the fact of their listing, what can you actually say about them? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date of establishment, editor(s) in chief, publisher(s), who indexes it, what field it covers, frequency of publications, where the journal stands as far as impact goes, and so on. WP:JWG has more, although in many cases the answer is 'well, it kept the same name, so there's no name change history to detail'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scimago does not have those details. It lists as its source http://pediatricresearch.info/ - that website does not exist. About the only thing we can say with confidence is that it exists and has a certain ISSN. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scimago doesn't need to have those details. That's why we draw from several sources. http://pediatricresearch.info/ was the old domain, it was moved to http://www.currentpediatrics.com/ at some point, which was redirected to http://www.alliedacademies.org/current-pediatrics/ at some point. This last move is fairly recent, as currentpediatrics.com was still up in July. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, textbook WP:OR. Show me a source that says this. Show me a source for change of ownership. Guy (Help!) 14:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero WP:OR, only demonstrable facts as demonstrated above. CPR was published by SPI now it's published by AA. There is no need to find a source covering specifically the transfer of ownership, unless we want to make specific claims about the transition. Since we don't have any such sources, we make no such claims. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The closest thing to reliable evidence about this journal is a chain of HTTP 302 messages, which is not a solid foundation for an encyclopedia article. (Searching alliedacademies.org for the string "Scientific Publishers of India" finds lots of documents with that branding. My guess is that SPI and AA are cups in the OMICS shell game.) XOR'easter (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided Not in pubmed. Which raises concerns about notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is anybody willing to hop off the fence?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Allied Academies as the journal's 'publisher'. PriceDL (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think a redirect to the 'publisher' article is suitable, since that article also probably could be deleted per WP:Notability --Treetear (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 14:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Treetear, the publisher article also can be deleted per WP:Notability Glycomics123 (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DNTST[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG of the 17 sources 12 are soundcloud or itunes so are not useful for showing notability. 1 is the label so not independent, 3 (2 are identical sources, Earmilk) is a passing mention, as is dancingastronaute, 1; weraveyou is a site that accepts payment for promotional articles here so not reliable. the number of views on soundcloud is not an indicator of notability as a simple search on google for "pay for views on soundcloud" will suggest. Domdeparis (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nomination covers it pretty well, and my additional searches turned up nothing beyond download sites. Despite releasing on independent labels, I can't find any independent third party indication of these releases other than run of the mill promotional. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Fair points. My main thoughts of notability were in reference to the play count (largely soundcloud (about 21 million plays total), which gained a majority of its plays via 8tracks.com, a playlist website), spotify (about 1.5 million plays), and youtube (a few hundred thousand)). In hindsight, I should have refrained from making the article. If the article pops up in the future, I'll let it handle itself organically. I apologize for getting excited and starting this without proper reason. Happy new year! Sincerely, DNTST (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy incase he becomes notable Atlantic306 (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

W&G Sissons[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Not to be confused with the silversmith of the same name. Kleuske (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I think this company is the successor of the silversmith - see [20]. My first impression is that there is an article to be had out of this company. It's now part of Franke (company). Mcewan (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's the same company, there's an article in there, sure, but it would have to focus on the notable (i.e. silversmith) part. However, the article does not give an indication of that. Kleuske (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete. The only indication this article gives is that the author has mistaken Wikipedia for a business listing site. Fails WP:ORG. WP:NOTDIR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ingo Money[edit]

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

This seems not to meet notability guidelines as outlined in WP:NCORP. The coverage so far is about announcements of a company going about its day to day activities which falls short of what an encyclopedia should have. Kagundu Talk To Me 13:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kagundu Talk To Me 13:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kagundu Talk To Me 13:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yup, all appear to be press releases. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG. References fail the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. —Cryptic 21:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

State of the Millennia[edit]

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

Non-notable album of non-notable musucian Bbarmadillo (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion. Artist does not have WP page. Mattg82 (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice to creation as a redirect. ansh 666 09:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

States of the world[edit]

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

Neologistic phrase coined and used in a single book (the only reference in the article used for the topic itself), and apparently w/o established usage in the further field. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly redirect to List of sovereign states (the current content has no relation to that topic). This is a dictdef of a jargon term that doesn't appear to be widely used in the field. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to state, this usage borrows from physics and at the state disambiguation page is the first exampl (unlinked) under Physics and chemistry, "State, a complete description of a system in classical mechanics." Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M2M public key certificate[edit]

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

No independent sources discuss this in detail. Fails WP:N. Wikipedia is not a manual and is not a directory WP:ISNOT. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PLCLogix[edit]

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

Well, this is fun. References are PR releases, a book that doesn't mention it, and dead links. A WP:BEFORE uncovered little. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 06:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dead links have been removed. New links have been added. Meets WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT criteria. Jama555 —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG compliant with new references. Banjoman1 20:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is well-written. References reflect popularity as educational resource. Chipset01 16:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors should discuss whether the changes made since the nomination now establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability of article has been achieved by changes made after nomination. Peppi35 16:44, 4 January 2018
Delete and I highly doubt that the obvious sock or meatpuppets above have actually read the sourcing, because if they had they would realize that most of the sourcing is about Programmable logic controllers in general, is trivial coverage, or is in primary sourcing. All of that means this does not come near meeting our inclusion standards. I'd also encourage that this be closed or relist by an admin because of the socking issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with TonyBallioni. However, I would correct one statement: all the sources in the article are about Programmable logic controllers in general, trivial coverage, or primary. Pavlor (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have struck all the keep !votes above as all of the accounts have been CU blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Methaneilie Solo[edit]

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

Does not meet notability for music (singer) WP:NM. Google search yields little results, few references. NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appears to be enough coverage of the singer, [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], etc. to suggest that he is a singer of note in Nagaland and qualifies under WP:MUSICBIO #1 and possibly #7. It is generally more difficult to source a singer from a remoter part of the world, and the fact that he was apparently more popular in the past (1990s) before news articles from such places get regularly archived on the internet made sourcing more difficult. That there is still current coverage of the singer would indicate that he is a singer of some local significance. Hzh (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentRewrite, article has divided to multiple paragraphs without content and sources. Genome$100 (talk) 09:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep additional sources have been found.Egaoblai (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ishtiaque Hossain[edit]

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

Dependent on non-independent sources. Included sources are his own author profile of HuffingtonPost or his blog posts. Amazon is a commercial site, Goodreads is a social catalog. The article is spammy, full of external links (Amazon and Facebook links) on the body. Possible COI. Mar11 (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Just because Kindle has made it so everyone can publish their research papers, even when there is no clear reason to believe they have the background to actually do indepth research on a particular subject, does not mean we need articles on everyone who has published a research paper on kindle. I am tempted to say some of my blog posts have involved more research and gotten more replies than some of this guys work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable subject. Found nothing in Bengali also. --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sourced and informative মাখামাখি (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - was covered in The Independent Bangladesh. Also, the guy is a scholar of communication from Monash university Malaysia, So he does have the proper background for communication research. Also, he's been writing for Business Insider as well. However agree about links to Facebook. That bit should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.24.122.43 (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 211.24.122.43 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 211.24.122.43 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No where close to being notable.No source found and the books are not notable.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burrito Bar[edit]

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

fast food restaurant with two dozen outlets in a single city and nowhere else. The refs, naturally are all local, and are naturally the usual restaurant PR. Getting such PR is about the same sort of minimum basics for opening a restaurant as getting a refrigerator. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG is absolutely correct in his characterization of the coverage. Delete. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete – doesn't meet WP:AUD~~. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my !vote above. May comment more later. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Abundant in coverage in mulitple Queensland newspapers, with many articles talking solely about this business. This includes:

"Mexican invasion – Burrito Bar heads south for beach flavour" Courier Mail (25 Nov 2011) p. 85
"Street artist turns death into a thing of beauty" Gold Coast Bulletin (16 Jan 2012) p. 16
"Netting flock of food buffs" Gold Coast Bulletin (12 Mar 2012) p.15
"But is Declan quirky enoughforawesome?" The Sunday Mail (28 Apr 2013) p.10
"A new flavour coming to town" The Morning Bulletin (17 May 2013) p. 9
"Burrito Bar set to open next year" The Chronicle (Toowoomba) (26 Nov 2015) p.9
"Mexican like you haven’t tried before" and "It’s the whole enchilada" Gold Coast Bulletin (6 Sep 2016) pp. 5 & 29
"Tex-Mex feasts coming to Shoppingworld" Daily Examiner (30 Dec 2017) p. 3)

Not so many mentions in articles available through the web, but still a handful in articles about shopping centre developments or its franchise owner. While an article on a new store opening or viral job listing alone would not be enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH, this (presumably) independent coverage is sustained across six years. Kb.au (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the coverage above is routine pre-opening promotion. This is insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP, as it's mostly non-independent, WP:SPIP coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 10:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simran Natekar[edit]

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

None is source write about subject in depth. ·•·1997 kB 10:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sems to have a fair bit of coverage over a ten-year period, [26]. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article requires rewriting. Genome$100 (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Not convinced by Integer's arguments.Sole claim to quasi-fame was (and is) being the cute girl in the anti-smoking ad.Has featured in trivial roles/cameos in a few movie(s) and one/two television shows, failing WP:NACTOR.Winged Blades^Godric 04:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need to ping, thanks. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 06:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Err..Winged Blades^Godric 11:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 By far the majority of the coverage is not indepedent. One of the supports voted twice and a couple appear to be single purpose accounts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HashCash Consultants[edit]

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

notability not established for yet another blockchain company Ysangkok (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of HashCash Consultants is well-established. It is among top 2-3 companies in this space such as Ripple and ConsenSys. Please suggest objective ways if any of improving content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayan999 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Top two according to what measure? This is just fluff, just like "HashCash has 100+ enterprises using its products". Unsourced advertising statements. This company has no significant news coverage. --Ysangkok (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are 30+ articles and news coverage of the company that I have come across (could spend more time on the references). Besides US media coverage is not world media coverage. You have to look outside of just coindesk and the names you are familiar with. This company is part of the International Organization for standards committee created to form blockchain standards globally. Regarding 100+ enterprises, I am assuming a company working with major banks wouldn't claim falsely on their website, but again that is my assumption. If no basis is found for this claim, it can be removed. Either way, this make the page candidate for improvement not deletion is my view. Sayan999 (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ as unambiguous advertising. Article consists entirely of spammy "Product and Services" section. I requested such under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've contested the speedy delete. Cryptocurrencies are a very important topic and we currently have 43 articles in Category:Bitcoin companies. I don't see why this company is less suitable that the others. As I indicated on the articles talk page, the article has little puffery and many refs. If it is considered substandard, improvement tags are the more appropriate way to go.--agr (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Appeals to "many such articles exist" often results in deletion of other, similar articles as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References provided for the article are PR releases and the same reference is quoted as multiple sources (Ref:-1 - 4), whereas the source is primary PR. Fails GNG and this new block chain company is WP:TOOSOON. Hagennos (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Found several independent mentions of the company, added 5 to references. The page looks ok compared to other existing pages on this topic. Don't see why it should be removed. The article do not seem to be using advertising language in my view.--Rc81 (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC) — Rajc81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Upon checking the list of the 42 bitcoin companies in Category:Bitcoin companies, it was found that 8 out of 10 articles have fewer and possibly weaker references than this page (which has 22 references from different sources). If notability of this article had been pointed out as an issue, then 80% of the pages in this category are also candidates for deletion. The purpose of the Wiki guideline literature is to maintain a uniform standard across articles. Do not think deletion of this article will help that.--Sayan999 (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC) — Sayan999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
delete . The same press release is cited 4 times and other refs are also churnalism. This is promotional dreck and would have to be rewritten from scratch to be a WP article. WP is undergoing some severe promotioanal pressure from crytocurrency advocates. Not good - we need to be very vigilant with the bubble and hype and all. Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The comments by Jytdog might need to be discounted because it expresses a general negativity towards blockchain and cryptocurrency companies unrelated to the page in question. "WP is undergoing some severe promotioanal pressure from crytocurrency advocates. Not good - we need to be very vigilant with the bubble and hype and all." We are not discussing cryptocurrency bubbles here. Sayan999 (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The accounts that are editing the AfD for Keep, Sayan999 and Rajc81 are suspected to have an undisclosed COI with the Company and has been flagged accordingly on their talk pages. Hagennos (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The accounts that are editing AfD Hagennos and Jytdog evidently belong to the same user. Sayan999 (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sayan999 if that is the case your can request a Sockpuppet investigation on the accounts. But please be aware of WP:BOOMERANG and do not shoot yourself in the foot. Hagennos (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hagennos, I would most politely suggest that instead of going after Wikipedia users, we keep the scope of the discussion to the article's quality, content and place in Wikipedia. It is matured and efficient to discuss through reasons and counter reasons. The quality of the debate will help in building consensus. The users you are steering the discussions to have added useful references to improve the article. Sayan999 (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice to recreation as a redirect. ansh 666 09:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second Battle of Adrianople[edit]

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

Per the article itself, the Bulgarians "preferred to retreat without a fight", so there was no battle. There was an Ottoman military operation that recovered Adrianople/Edirne, but there is nothing to suggest that any conflict actually happened here. This should be deleted, as the relevant information is already present, in far better form, in the Second Balkan War article. Constantine ✍ 09:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I further note that "Second Battle of Adrianople" is a rare name in the literature, at least as determined by GBooks hits. It should also be noted the original redirect of this title was the Battle of Adrianople (378), which is what the handful of GBooks hits would also suggest. The only instance of the title being used for the 1913 event is by Richard J. Evans (!) in one of his books as an image caption, but I would wager good money that this is a result of Wikipedia using the title. Constantine ✍ 09:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with the nominator, this should be deleted or re-redirected to the 378 battle. What occurred in 1913 could be written about in depth under the title, "Occupation of Adrianople". If someone wanted to touch up the article a bit with an eye towards a renaming along those lines, I would support that. Also, the idea that this is the "second something" could be based on Enver Pasha calling himself "Second conquerer of Edirne" (the first coming in the 1360s) as a result of the war - but that still doesn't mean this title makes any sense as applied to what happened on July 21, 1913. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or repurpose). The account of the Ottoman intervention in the Second Balkan War is much better given in that article. It might be legitimate to have a separate article on that. We seem to get quite a lot of articles whose function seems to be for the author to use a battles infobox, even in cases where there was a confrontation but no fighting. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm adding a !vote just so that there isn't any confusion that I support a such an outcome. I'm happy with a redirect to the 378 battle, but there is nothing here to merge that isn't in other articles about the Balkan War and anyone searching for the 378 battle is likely to have no problem finding it without a redirect. Smmurphy^(Talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Save Miguel[edit]

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

Unreferenced & promotional Rathfelder (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Noah Lukeman. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Tragedy of Macbeth Part II[edit]

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

In attempting to fix the {{unreferenced}} tag I failed to find a single secondary source, despite what appears extensive efforts by the author or publisher to promote it at the time of release. I haven't found a single review of this book or a performance of it as a play, much less from a publication whose name I recognise. Xover (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author page as not notable book. There are a couple of sources providing short notes[27][28] but no full-length review. It might also be mentioned briefly in Macbeth in popular culture. Note: I'm not totally sure that Lukeman is himself notable, but he's discussed in several publications about writers/for writers whose status as reliable sources is unclear. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Noah Lukeman; I'm not sure he's notable, but that's not an issue here. (I wouldn't recommend an AfD of that page). There's no evidence this passes WP:NBOOK. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As others have noted the book does not meet WP:NBOOK. However, the title may be something people search for and should be preserved. Chetsford (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Indian Chinese cuisine. Since it's discussed at the new target page, it's not unreasonable to have this redirect there since there's consensus not to have a standalone article. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paneer Chilli[edit]

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

Sources referenced are passing mentions (CNN) or non-notable food websites. This could easily retarget to Paneer of which this is an entry. No significant coverage on the history of this food. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Sources appear to be recipes so this also fails WP:NOTCOOKBOOK. Ajf773 (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing here to show notability. Tacyarg (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fusion dish without any history or notability. MT Train^Discuss 12:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indo Chinese cuisine article where it's already covered. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Family Reunion[edit]

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

Nothing about this band or its music seems to meet WP:Notability (music) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage from Rolling Stone cited in the article, plus NPR, No Depression, American Songwriter, The Irish News, Paste, etc. satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. --Michig (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources pointed out in the above vote confirm notability. Article could be improved by citing them. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NMUSIC criterion #1 as pointed out above. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ela I Si Vzemi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Misleading chart source. Acharts.co is mirroring Bulgaria Singles Top 40 which is included in Deprecated charts section. IFPI (BAMP) does not have a official chart, ever since they updated their site. It should be a redirect to Gery-Nikol. Quickfingers (talk) 06:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naprao Gi Ubivam[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Misleading chart source. Acharts.co is mirroring Bulgaria Singles Top 40 which is included in Deprecated charts section. IFPI (BAMP) does not have a official chart, ever since they updated their site. It should be a redirect to Gery-Nikol. Quickfingers (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo Kukla[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Misleading chart source. Acharts.co is mirroring Bulgaria Singles Top 40 which is included in Deprecated charts section. IFPI (BAMP) does not have a official chart, ever since they updated their site. It should be a redirect to Tita. Quickfingers (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well Paid[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Misleading chart source. Acharts.co is mirroring Bulgaria Singles Top 40 which is included in Deprecated charts section. IFPI (BAMP) does not have a official chart, ever since they updated their site. It should be a redirect to 100 Kila. Quickfingers (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K'vo Ne Chu[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Misleading chart source. Acharts.co is mirroring Bulgaria Singles Top 40 which is included in Deprecated charts section. IFPI (BAMP) does not have a official chart, ever since they updated their site. Quickfingers (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antilopa[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Misleading chart source. Acharts.co is mirroring Bulgaria Singles Top 40 which is included in Deprecated charts section. IFPI (BAMP) does not have a official chart, ever since they updated their site. It should be a redirect to Tita. Quickfingers (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Martin (Football)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NSPORT for pro football: didn't play in a CFL game (retired before the season started), his college football honors are in Conference USA honor roll mostly, which isn't listed in Template:College football award navbox. He does have some local news articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources: [29][30][31][32][33][34][35] From nl.newsbank.com, Sun Herald: "Houston transfer Martin has been pleasant surprise for USM", "Saturday's Texas State game a family affair for USM's Martin" WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Herald is local to Mississippi, and Ottawa Citizen to where he was going to play for CFL until he didn't. USA Today's article is in the context of his reception record for just the school. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note his college career section would have to be completely rewritten so as to not be a copyvio of his Southern Miss profile anymore. A lot of the content is now removed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. He may have been viral during the draft but he never played professionally and no reason was given. Could it be he never made the team?Postcard Cathy (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He retired before he could play in a CFL game so he doesn't qualify for WP:NGRIDIRON and doesn't seem to meet WP:NCOLLATH either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus that the mentioned flaws in the article can be addressed by editing while the subject itself is notable enough for inclusion. So Why 10:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Carlson (rower)[edit]

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

Many of the sources linked to in this article are either blogs or do not mention the subject at all. Several of them are clearly self serving and shoehorned in for no apparent purpose (particularly offensive are a number of self publish articles that are included just so the author can claim he has published numerous articles on "a variety of subjects"). Poor sources indicate padding of resume for low-profile individual. Suggest immediate deletion as not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.167.154 (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This stated reasons for this Unsigned IP WP:SPA nomination for deletion (weak or irrelevant sources; "self publish articles") are incorrect. Literally none of the sources linked in this article are blogs, and they all mention the subject. None of them are self-publish articles either. The sources cited include The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Vanity Fair, the subject's International Rowing Federation athlete bio, and the subject's USRowing team bio; additionally articles authored by the subject in Antiquity (journal) and Foreign Policy Magazine are cited. These are strong, reliable, and relevant sources. --Cozeyalley111 (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock. Worldbruce (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have not yet formulated an opinion at this time. --Finngall ^talk 05:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion rationale has no merit. Carlson is a World Championship medallist ([36]) and University Boat Race winner ([37]), with plenty of coverage in reliable sources ([38], [39], [40], [41], [42], etc.). --Michig (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, reads and looks like promotional work, as does the rationale behind the image. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why you believe a rower who won a World Championships bronze medal is 'non-notable'? --Michig (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Bronze medal is not notable these days. It might have been in the very first Olympics. Even Gold may not be enough (especially in fringe sport, such as this), you need multiple golds and domination of the activity, possibly over successive Olympics. In any case this article and everything about it reeks of finely crafted promotional work. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your view doesn't tally at all well with our notability guidelines for sportspeople. --Michig (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has the hallmarks of undisclosed paid editing. Hours after their first edit (unrelated), a WP:SPA creates with their second edit this well-formed article with 46 impecably formated references, an infobox, correctly piped links, categories, close compliance with the Manual of Style, etc. Their only other edits, the following week, are to create a disambigution page for the topic. Later on, Greenroomcreative, another SPA, adds a studio portrait. Green Room Creative is a New York City marketing agency that boasts Carlson's company Rowing Blazers as a client.[43] A third SPA comes along and, after a few hours updating this article, submits a draft about the company, Draft:Rowing Blazers. A fourth editor, not quite a SPA, spends 7 of their 16 edits, spread out over five different days spanning nearly a month, to tweak Jack Carlson (rower) and Draft:Rowing Blazers, and link to Carlson from other articles. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is clearly promotional work. Material regarding rowing already covered by article detailing with those races (is conspicuous that none of the other rowers on the team with Carlson have personal articles).

Keep. Deletion rationale is stated as weak sources. But in reality, the sources quite literally include a New York Times profile of the subject. Besides the New York Times piece, there are articles from The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News and Town & Country Magazine. Also cited are academic articles authored by the subject in Antiquity (journal) and Foreign Policy Magazine and the subject's official USRowing team athlete biography. I must also note that I was queried by Worldbruce about whether or not I am a paid editor. I was quite shocked by this but appreciate the concern. I am not a paid editor; just someone who has followed this subject's career for some time. --Cozeyalley111 (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock. Worldbruce (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The individual covered here is a notable person in the world of fashion as well as rowing and an award-winning author. The page has also been active since 2015 with edits from many different users. In addition to the variety of important publications mentioned above profiling him such as the New York Times, I think it is worth noting that the IP address user 38.104.167.154 has been censured for incorrect and inappropriate edits in the past. --Utraqueunum (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock. Worldbruce (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion rationale has no merit. All cited sources are relevant and reliable. 2A02:A210:2044:300:9876:F943:75E7:C2FB (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of those sources is literally the subject's own website. Another, "Hear the Boat Sing" literally bills itself as "This blog covers all aspects of the rich history of rowing".

If the Unsigned IP poster would take the time to read WP:IRS, they would find that citing a subject's own website to support a statement that the subject is (for example) a vegetarian (which happens to be the only piece of information citing the subject's website in this article) is actually perfectly acceptable: the statement is not "unduly self-serving;" it is not a "claim about a third party" or "unrelated event;" there is "no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" (unless the Unsigned IP poster has some evidence to suggest Mr Carlson is not a vegetarian); and "the article is not primarily based on such sources." In fact, the vegetarian statement was the only statement citing the subject's website, and almost all of the other 24 citations are from top-tier news sources, including (it has been said before) The New York Times; the remainder of the sources being composed of official athlete biographies, Henley Royal Regatta and Head of the Charles Regatta official records and results, academic journals, and apparently one blog about rowing that is causing Unsigned IP poster so much distress. The sustained effort by said Unsigned IP poster to misrepresent an objectively well-cited article as one in which "many of the sources are blogs or do not mention the subject at all," combined with their characterization of the subject - a member of multiple USA national teams recently profiled in The New York Times - as a "low profile individual," as well as the bewildering and denigrating comments above stating that, "A Bronze medal is not notable these days. It might have been in the very first Olympics. Even Gold may not be enough (especially in fringe sport, such as this)", seem to belie some personal agenda or bias against the subject.-- Cozyalley111 (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock. Worldbruce (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems that the individual described here does have the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject required under the Notability Guidelines, not just the notability guidelines for sports and athletes, but also for books and for people. --Georgetownhoya (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock. Worldbruce (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be a voice of reason here, as it seems there is some bias on both sides. The request for deletion said this article was based on bad sources and that this person is a “low-profile” individual. But this is wrong. The sources are very strong. Major news sources like a full article in New York Times. And as someone (only tangentially) involved in the sport of rowing in another country, I can tell you that this person is prominent in the sport, as both an athlete and an author. The article’s sources confirm this too. I don’t want to get involved in any weirdness. Just a rowing fan who can confirm the subject’s relevance! 2A02:A210:2044:300:9035:89D7:5988:2D14 (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Trim and Significantly Rewrite (disclosure: I was invited to come here through a comment on my Talk page) WP:ATHLETE does not have a specific criteria for rowers. However, in general, the criteria for other non-Olympic sportspersons is that they have won a gold medal at their sports' world championship (if a team sport) or any medal (if an individual sport). If we cross-apply that here, Jack Carlson does not qualify for an article under ATHLETE as he won a bronze medal in a team sport, a view also echoed by BeckenhamBear.

I now move on to see if he meets GNG. Many of the sources in the article are not RS (e.g. blogspot, heartheboatsing.com, etc.). There are, however, many that are (e.g. Wall Street Journal, NY Times, etc.). However, the articles that are RS only cover Jack Carlson within the context of his company Rowing Blazers and do not provide any deep biographical information on him. Even a CEO profile story or two would help validate this article but we don't have that. That said, via a search on Google News I found a couple articles which - while still focused on his company - do provide enough scraps of biographical data here and there to pass the GNG threshold, namely: this in The Observer [44], this in the Boston Globe [45], and this in Complex [46]. If the final decision is KEEP, this article should be substantially rewritten to remove statements supported by non-RS, to introduce new RS sources, and to tone down the rah-rah aspects a bit. A short and succinct bio is warranted, however, the current sprawling article is probably overreach. Chetsford (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the references identified in the preceding post and also by Michig, he passes WP:GNG and the SNG with a bronze medal in a world cup. However the article needs to be carefully checked for neutrality given the SPAs and socks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hand truck. ansh 666 09:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Piano tilter[edit]

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

WP is not a dictionary. Unclear what this article adds to the project. It is just describing a hand cart used for moving pianos. There is not even a dedicated source, just a mention in a book on piano tuning. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 05:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into hand truck. It is basically a variation of that tool. bd2412 T 23:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merging makes sense to me. Brentonstrine —Preceding undated comment added 04:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
El Cid, does the entire book have to be about tilters to be a valid source? When you say "project" do you mean Wikipedia? Can't adding information about cool and unique tools be enough? This article isn't about the word "piano tilter" but the concept, that's the difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentonstrine (talk • contribs) 05:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and briefly merge to hand truck, as per BD2412. OK, so a tool exists, but each one needs to meet WP:GNG and be written about in depth by independent sources. I couldn't easily find any on this topic, but I did find this that shows me what it looks like and how it works. Seems rather like a hand truck to me. . .though it is kind of cool. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to into hand truck and redirect seems a sensible solution. Sam Sailor 22:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 17:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further Confusion[edit]

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

Article uses primary sources, and a search doesn't produce this convention as one of the first results. Fails WP:GNG. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTCLEANUP; the sources found by Shelbystripes are sufficient. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The article includes a list of multiple reliable secondary sources as references; they just aren't properly used as in-line citations. It clearly needs improvement, but notability appears to exist and is WP:LASTING. Beyond the 2005-era references mentioned in the article, but it was given in-depth international coverage in 2013, analyzed for its economic influence on Silicon Valley in 2014, given a nationwide exposé in 2015, mentioned as a driver of the San Jose economy in 2017... AfD is not cleanup, and it sounds like the nominator didn't adequately search for sources WP:BEFORE nominating. I found those stories in about 30 seconds. Shelbystripes (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just searched 'Further Confusion' and the Furcon official website came up as the first result, does in fact meet WP:GNG. The only real issue I came across after reading the article was a lack of inline citations which is easy cleanup and doesn't at all constitute deletion. Grapefruit17 (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Abrar[edit]

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

fails to meet basic WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Störm (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fire and Fury[edit]

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

Nothing about this game appears to meet WP:GNG. No sources outside of some random blog posts exist. WP:NGAME is about video games, not "miniatures wargames", but this doesn't meet the spirit of it either. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Keep. ~~A reasonable WP:BEFORE might be performed before submitting for AfD.~~ On the first page of the gsearch I see this from miniatures.de, a German website. Wargamer.com has this. Neither of these are blogs and both directly detail. Originally these rules were released pre-internet, so most product reviews will be offline. Put this together with the Lowder book and we meet GNG from diverse professional sources independent of the subject. BusterD (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I did WP:BEFORE. I wasn't impressed. I didn't think these links counted for much in terms of WP:RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are certainly specialized sources, but not indiscriminate. BusterD (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is fair, and you do know more about the field than I do. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not a Video Game - This is a BoardGame in comparrison to something like War Hammer, so I have removed the Video Games tag. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BusterD, and move to ←Fire and Fury (board game) to make room for the new book or a disambiguation page. BOZ (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The subject is a miniatures rules system, like AD&D's Battlesystem or the very popular (and laborious) Johnny Reb (game). So I'd not use "board game" as a disambiguator. I'd prefer "miniatures rules" but think Fire and Fury (game) meets the naming standard best. But It's clear with the new book out we'll need a disambiguation page. I can see why the nominator put this up, though. No hard feelings, Muboshgu, and congratulations on your shiny new mop. Truly. The book will certainly one day be a primary topic and this is such a fringe subject that only game nerds like BOZ and I are familiar. BusterD (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough! :) I agree that is a fine disambiguator. BOZ (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BusterD, but move it to Fire and Fury (game). The upcoming book Fire and Fury will likely be the primary topic. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per my conversation with BusterD at User_talk:Muboshgu#Fire_and_Fury, I'm okay with withdrawing this nom and moving the page to accommodating the new primary topic. (As an aside, while discussing "primary topic", notice that the page views of this article are fairly low, with a serious bump on August 9, 2017. Why might that be? That's because the day before, Trump promised "fire and fury" for North Korea.) – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BuildZoom[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on a non notable private business; significant RS coverage to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH not found. Much of the article is details on the various research that the company published, but I don't believe that's sufficient in establishing notability and authoritativeness of the company as a source. Has been previously deleted via AfD (Oct 2016) and via CSD (Nov 2017). K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Again. Per nom, advertisement, no significant coverage. James (^talk/_contribs) 19:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, fails WP:SPIP WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Life Noggin[edit]

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

Not a notable YouTube channel. The coverage is only trivial mentions rather than significant coverage. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of players who have scored 20 Test Cricket hundreds[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTSTATS – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTMIRROR. This content can be easily sourced from espnCricinfo link associated with: List of Test cricket records#Centuries. I don't see any new to separated them to those who only scored 20+ of them. Ajf773 (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Ajf773. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not necessary to have a separate list article on this one and the article header is also seems to be a weak one. Abishe (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While 20 is an arbitrary cut-off, number of test centuries is an important statistic covered in many reference books and hence potentially valid. However it's a duplicate of one column in List of cricketers by number of international centuries scored. Redirecting makes no sense because of the figure 20 being so arbitrary. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Störm (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dev (actor) filmography[edit]

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

It looks like the filmography is in both this article and the main Dev (actor) article. Please make up your mind on whether it should be split or not. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator – editor has decided to split the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect ? .... Sorry but why's this at AFD?..... –Davey2010^Talk 03:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

or Keep .... that's a good idea too!, That'll teach me for not checking the article first!. –Davey2010^Talk 03:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's because it was doubled since September 2017. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi again AngusWOOF. The main article is already large and it makes sense to have a separate list for not just the filmography but also for the subject's awards. I have removed the filmography list from the main article so that it is not replicated. This perhaps should not have been brought to Afd and you could have initiated a discussion on the talk page of either article. Given the restructuring I've done. would you consider withdrawing this nomination? Thanks, Lourdes 03:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay will withdraw. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after page improvements. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muy[edit]

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

None of the entries on this page is really disambiguating "Muy". There are variations like de Muy, Le Muy, Félix du Muy, and Muy Muy, but it doesn't seem likely that these topics would be looked up solely by "Muy", and certainly aren't routinely known by the name "Muy" alone. The two May Rivers don't belong, nor do the three phrases in Spanish in the Other section that happen to begin with the Spanish word "muy". Finally, over half the entries on the page are red links anyway. It's at best a stretch. Largoplazo (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while the page at the time it was nominated was a complete disaster, I've cleaned it up and found a couple of other entries. older ≠ wiser 13:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Now keep (though I'm a bit skeptical about the du Muy entry). Largoplazo (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - great to see pages worked on after being AFD-ed so they can be kept and be useful. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kavijanasrayam[edit]

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

I can't figure out what this is supposed to be? A book? A collection of poems? A single poem? The article is mostly a debate over who authored the book. It doesn't explain what the book is about and how it is notable, other than it being old. Half of the article is in Telugu. Is it fiction because it involves poetry? No links to the equivalent article in Telugu. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment article was also created by a a blocked user. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AngusWOOF, the references available on Google Books and the references available within the article are enough to qualify the subject over WP:GNG and even WP:NBOOK. This is a much quoted historical text (prosody). I've now given the wiki link inside the article. I do understand your point that the article needs to be cleaned up. But in my opinion, deletion is not the solution for cleaning up. This seems a Keep to me. If you agree, I'll start cleaning up the article and will make it tighter. What do you say? Thanks, Lourdes 03:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be amenable to cleaning it up in draft? The book references aren't clear at all. It's still not clear what it is. A prosody could mean a study on poetry, setting poetry to music. So is it a book of poems? Or a single poem? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current article as is written does not provide any context or reasoning for the page to exist. The references provided are passive mentions and does not establish notability. As suggested by AgnusWOOF the article can me moved to draft or deleted. Hagennos (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is now a basic comprehensible overview/introduction, acceptable for Wikipedia. The topic is a notable ancient work of the Telugu literature. Thanks to User:Lourdes for his/her constructive attitude - a great example of how an encyclopedist should approach problems in an encyclopedia. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:TNT on the article does help clarify things a little, but is it a treatise on how Telugu poetry is structured or a list of poems? Or both? Some of the references provided do not mention this particular work, but Telugu prosody in general. If there are multiple names or spellings for the work, they should be listed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a collection of poems ("...Malliya Rechana, the Jaina author of the early work on Telugu metrics named Kavijanasrayam states in one of the introductory verses that he could accomplish that work with assistance rendered to him by certain Vachak-abharana..."[47]) but maybe the theory and poetry could work together in Telugu literature. I don't say the article is perfect but I think it is a good starting point providing some useful and reliable references to a reader. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 17:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, in my study, it comes out to be a book that tells the rules – in other words, the Metre (poetry) – of how verses should be formed in Telugu poetry. The wiki link of Metre that I've provided gives sufficient clarification on what is the meaning of these so called rules that the book is based on. Thanks, Lourdes 22:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article Kavijanasrayam deserves to exist since this is the oldest available piece of Telugu literature and many poets followed this book.By referring this book,scholars such as Charles Philip Brown wrote a book in English on Telugu prosodic techniques. The techniques can be added eventually to this article by other editors.

I think the direction of the article changed because one of the editors(SubhashiniIyer) was continously disrupting the page based on these aspects.

1) Jain Origins and 2) Nativity of the poet 3) Antiquity (940 AD)

The editor(Abrahmad111) has provided groundbreaking evidences from Telugu books on the above aspects.The editor who disrupted initially is shell shocked from the past 5 months and not even a single evidence has been challenged.The prejudiced and unintellectual editor 1)cannot tolerate the fact that Jain religion Telugu literature preceded Vedic religion Telugu Literature. It is a kind of religious intolerance extended to wikipedia.2) wanted the poet to belong to her home state(province) 3) cannot tolerate any Telugu Literature to be placed before 1050 AD since she assumes that all literature started after 1050 AD only after poet Nannaya, who belonged to her home state(province) .

Now that these biases were totally disproved,we can move those aspects to the talk page or retain them in a concise form in the actual page

Telugu evidences 1 2 3

English references 4 5 6

Finally,the editor(Abrahmad111) was blocked based on only suspicion of sock puppetry but not proven.What is more important is the evidence he left.SattiPandu (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the TNT, the article was all about debating the authorship, which should have taken place on the talk page. If the debate was among scholars and not the editors, then a section summarizing the debate supported with secondary sourced news articles could be provided. But it was a complete mess at the time of the AFD. As for poets following the book, there could be a Legacy section discussing how later poets have referred to the book as a template for their writings. But at this point, it needs significant coverage WP:SIGCOV in secondary sources first to show notability. If it's indeed the oldest piece of Telugu literature, the article needs references from secondary sources to support that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If a book has survived for over a thousand years, it's notable. XOR'easter (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ! It should have been in a talk page.Unfortunately not done because editor(SubhashiniIyer) directly put the discussion on the page.Please see the history from the start.Where as ALL scholars call it a JAIN work, she just puts her personal opinions that is NOT a Jain WORK.Where as editor(Abrahmad111) provided Central Sahitya Academy reference, P.V.P Sastry,C.P.Brown,Nidudavolu Venkat Rao,Veturi Prabhakara Sastry,Chaganti Seshayya,S.V.Rama Rao and many more references.The editor (SubhashiniIyer) wants us to believe her opinion and reject Central Sahitya Academy run by govt of India and all references which are not inline with her biased mindset...

With regards to the earliest available Telugu Literature so far.. Mallia Rec 9th century poet Malliya Rechana-First Telugu Author (940AD) , Kavijanasrayam,Vemulawada Karimnagar,

With regards to Jain origins, the English links are self explanatory.. Jainism: art, architecture, literature & philosophy Jain literature. All scholars call it a JAIN work.Show me ONE author which calls it a non-JAIN work?.Please refer the Telugu links as well.

Books won't survive for 1000 years.They are copied and copied by generation after generation. Kavijanasrayam is available in 50 copies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SattiPandu (talk • contribs) 19:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine if you want to add back the Jain phrase. The 50 copies needs to be sourced, but that's a later detail. The English source for C.P. Brown only uses it as a passing mention along with another work. Are there any other texts that give it significant coverage? Can you confirm from the Telugu references presented, since the English ones so far have it as passing mention? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed the earlier content and references. 40 copies are available. Please check with some one who knows Telugu Unfortunately no english ref is available for this.. Significant coverage is done in these books. The references which were again removed. At least please read the English Meta-data in the archive.org

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.333847 Kavi Janasramamu by Malliya Rechana

Publication date 1950 Topics City Collection digitallibraryindia; texts Language Telugu

Read the english meta-data or english preface.. https://archive.org/stream/kavijanaashrayam020695mbp#page/n3/mode/2up

Kavijanaashrayamu-Chandashastramu by Jayanthi Ramaiah

Publication date 1932 Publisher ANDHRA SAHITYA PARISHATH Collection universallibrary Contributor SRI KRISHNA DEVARAYANDRA BHASHA NILAYAM Language Telugu SattiPandu (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't removed it. Perhaps it was Lourdes after the TNT? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'm convinced there is now enough significant coverage on the book. The preface was helpful and should be integrated into the article. We can continue improvements on the article at the talk page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusters International[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Basically advertising. A list of their successes and services . It belongs on their web page, not an encyclopedia . Kept back in 2008 when our standards were lower. DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are business periodicals or local papers so it fails WP:ORG. Tacyarg (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom and Tacyarg. Fails GNG. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elyson de Dios[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kevin Sagra

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

An under-sourced BLP on a reality TV show contestant and actor whose roles have been minor. Significant RS coverage not found. Article sourced to routine news about the show, interviews, and passing mentions. Does not meet WP:NACTOR. The article was deleted in 2015, as not meeting notability guidelines, only achieving top 4 in the show. The subject has not done anything significant since then, so I recommend deletion at this time, in line with the first AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Frame[edit]

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

A CV-like page on an unremarkable entrepreneur. Significant RS coverage not found. As a CEO of semi-notable company, does not meet WP:ANYBIO. 30 under 30 and similar accolades are likewise not indicative of notability. Article is sourced to routine notices about the company, interviews, WP:SPIP and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Created by Special:Contributions/Cocohickman, an account with one total edit. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Clips[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC, no source for the "Rookie of the Year Award" and it doesn't appear as if they were a recurring cast member. Jon Kolbert (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 09:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lady B[edit]

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

Notability-tagged. Main claims to notability (one of earliest female rappers and earliest to record album) are unsourced. Thought it good for community to have a look. Agricola44 (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: she was certainly well known in early hip hop circles – she made her single in 1979 at the very beginnings of hip hop's breakthrough into the mainstream, and then hosted a radio show in her native Philadelphia. Her recent sacking from the station has made it into the Philadelphia Inquirer [48] and a Google Books search will show she's been name-checked in several books about hip hop [49], [50], [51], [52]. She was also editor-in-chief of Word Up! magazine for a while. I'd understand if other editors consider that one single and a local radio show isn't enough to pass notability, and it is difficult to find non-internet sources, but she is definitely a respected name within hip hop. Richard3120 (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of substantial third party coverage in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A rather sad forgotten bio, however I think this can be saved as I think I have found enough coverage. [53] [54] Mattg82 (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I've updated the article I think this is a keeper now. Mattg82 (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article has been improved with extra references added for a close pass of WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per expanded sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Cockfield[edit]

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

No evidence that he meets WP:PROF. Unimpressive list of coauthored books, and the only reference in the article is to what appears to be a fly-by-night academic journal that he founded himself. Bueller 007 (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom's summary is accurate. Agricola44 (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep holds prestigious faculty position at a major Uni. Cited and quoted often as an expert on tax laws. Theres2 also coverage of his role in government tax writing. And he writes on tax issues. Influential and significant figure. Notability established. Articles could be improved. FloridaArmy (talk) 08:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on "prestigious faculty position"? This is one of the criteria in PROF, but I don't see that he holds a named chair, distinguished title, or other official designation that would qualify. Agricola44 (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's been a research chair, department fellow, and is a prof at a prestiguous Uni. Queen's University. His influential status and roles along with his work and substantial coverage establish his notability. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Fellow" is generally a junior title and "professor" is not notable per se. "Research chair" is not a standard title, unless you are perhaps referring to Canada Research Chair. Does he hold this designation? Agricola44 (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if FloridaArmy could share some of the citations of the subject as a tax law expert.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 01:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. After some amount of checking, it has become clear that the subject is not a Canada Research Chair. Several institutional and personal webpages list a "Fulbright Visiting Chair", which is presumably what FloridaArmy has referred to as a "research chair". The Fulbright web page indicates it is an application-based program that facilitates 1-semester educational exchanges for Canadian scholars wishing to visit a US institution. As such, it is clearly not an award that satisfies PROF #2. Agricola44 (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lot of references, quotes and reliance on his views as a tax expert and his writings and scholarship on tax havens and tax. here are some examples. His books on taxes seem to be used at unis which also adds to his notability. i believe a text used by colleges and unis is notable per Wikipedia criteria? FloridaArmy (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fails WP:ACADEMIC as above, his position is not a notable one.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus seems to keep this, at least as a redirect, which can be achieved by editing. So Why 10:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikka Costa (Album)[edit]

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

Non notable and does not cite any references. Abishe (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: according to Nikki Costa#Discography this album was certified platinum in Spain. Richard3120 (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It probably sold few copies back then, but she clinched WP:N in her adult life, thus making this notable as her debut album. I moved the title to (album) rather than the capitalized (Album) per MOS. Nate • (chatter) 18:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nikka Costa. A supposed platinum certification proves enough people bought the album to receive that certication, but without additional coverage in reliable sources, a redirect suffices here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While being certified platinum is usually enough for inclusion, reliable sources to make it notable are thin on the ground. I was going to say redirect but there is not much point IMO as it is a self titled album anyway. Mattg82 (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep extra references have been added to the article and as it went platinum there is a strong likelihood of offline sources for this pre-internet release Atlantic306 (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G5 NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Neupane (musician)[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete for " This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject - Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable. ". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This shouldn't be delete at all. He is a gem of Nepali hiphop society, who has strongly made his move to the mainstream hip-hop with a variety of songs. I would rather suggest to revise it, at least with a minimal words. Nepaligirl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.224.81 (talk)
Speedy Delete - Copyright violation of [55] and an advertisement for the subject. reddogsix (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I deleted this as a good match on the remote site. The creator complained that there was no match - on checking there is zero match now, seems someone has removed the copyvio text from the web site - I'll let others draw their own conclusions. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there no match to the site and the Wikipedia article has not significantly changed isn't that still a since the original article changed? Once it is published, it is copyrighted.reddogsix (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 US Open of Curling[edit]

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

Non-notable future event. I'm not sure if curling is notable enough of a sport to have an article for this specific tournament. Perhaps this page could be redirected to US Open of Curling. Natg 19 (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sport-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It Is a notable Sport there is lots of other event pages Curler1200 (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Please explain how this is notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the major World Curling Tour events held in the United States and is a warm-up for the upcoming Olympics for the US teams. Though, I can understand that at present the article lacks sufficient sources and formatting issues to stand on its own. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article does need work, but I agree with what's been stated by Earl Andrew. Also, the winners (and several participants in the event) are notable per WP:NCURL and have participated in events held by the World Curling Federation and Canadian Curling Association, the two most important curling associations in the world. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One major problem for source-finding is that this series was released under different names for different markets. In French, it was Le Monde de Pahé. In Portuguese, it was Como Irmãos, etc etc. I tried to pillage the interlanguage links for sources, but nobody else has anything reliable we can use.

I'm confident it existed based on the clips I've found, but the utter lack of sources means we can't support an article about it. Refund absolutely applies if sources are located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Le Monde de Pahe[edit]

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

Non-notable tv series. Other than single passing mentions in a few interviews and a really old, no-info iMDB page, I can't even verify it's existence in the context portrayed in the article. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Edited 19:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)) The title is incorrectly capitalized; it should be Le monde de Pahé. The Plot section is poorly written and reads like a copyvio translation from the series itself. There may be sources in French, but I have only basic knowledge of that language. There are articles in German, Spanish, and Portuguese, but not French.LaundryPizza03 (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit: Also, there is no episode information. Is 74 episodes/season the norm in French television? 19:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaundryPizza03 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Gautam[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lack of the mu;ltiple items of coverage needed to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is the sort of article to which WP:SYSTEMIC applies: the best sources are likely not internet accessible and not in English. Yet despite that barrier, we have one reliable source already in the article, and I was able to find a second and third: strong evidence that Gautam was a notable Nepalese musician. Υπογράφω (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, per the source in the article and those linked by Υπογράφω. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (withdrawn informally although never completed by the nominator) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chapo Trap House episodes[edit]

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

A separate Wikipedia article listing the episodes of Chapo Trap House? Chapo Trap House barely meets the notability requirements. A list of episodes for this podcast surely doesn't? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is some precedent for similar articles, here: episode category. I believe the article should be kept.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snooganssnoogans, hope you're well. I don't see a reason for deletion given in your nomination statement. I do understand your opinion that you don't wish a separate list. In my view, Chapo Trap House seems notable enough and including the list within that article would editorially elongate the article beyond requirement. Per WP:LISTN, "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability". However, the list of Chapo Trap episodes itself seems notable as various episodes have been discussed in Medium, Paste magazine (check the material before the interview), Washington Post and others. As per WP:LISTN again, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." I personally feel this qualifies on LISTN and should be a Keep, both for informational purposes and for pure notability reasons. What do you think? Warmly, Lourdes 03:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy when it comes to lists, so I'll heed the advice of more knowledgable users. There does seem to be a precedent for listing episodes for podcasts if the podcasts themselves cross the threshold of notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Snooganssnoogans. You could leave a note at the top of this Afd that you are withdrawing the nomination. Warmly again, Lourdes 03:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xilent[edit]

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

Most of the sources listed here are music blogs and YouTube videos. The amount of reliable sources on this subject do not have enough significant coverage to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 19:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 19:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 19:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If genuinely notable there would be more sources to cite than just self created

material on youtube or user-created-content forums SamanthaFinmore (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crosslet, Dumbarton[edit]

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

Non-notable street. No sources for over 10 years, no significant coverage found in search for reliable sources. It is a real street and there are some articles that mention the street name in passing. Gab4gab (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage on the web. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:NGEO. Tacyarg (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to suggest this is a particularly notable street/area.Dunarc (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 10:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Efiwe.org[edit]

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

Fails the criteria for establishing notability. Some references are from reliable sources but they are not independent of the subject and do not contain independent analysis and/or opinion. Fails WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-written the profile to be more encyclopedic and less newsletter-y like it had become before. Hi @HighKing: do take a look and let me know if you're satisfied. Igwatala (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Igwatala, it is less advertorial in tone now, but there are no indications of notability and the only purpose to have an article is to promote the cause. I nominated the article because it requires two intellectually independent references in order to meet the criteria for notability and this article has none. Every reference is a PRIMARY source, either directly published by the organization or its an interview with Philip - those references fail WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As a partner organization fufilling a similar purpose to Wikipedia. Keep. scope_creep (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has enough sources in its 14 references to show notability. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems to me that the keep lines (both experienced editors) are not addressing Wikipedia:Notability and WP:ORGIND. There's no evidence of "partner organization" status, and that's not the guideline anyway: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. Of the 14 alleged sources, 9 are written by Efiwe.org, of which 3 are the same press release deliberately cited from different websites; the other 5 are local to towns around Southern Illinois University Edwardsville:
1. local: The Telegraph is near SIUE (and also filled with abusive JavaScript, link spam inserted visibly in some pages, and scam ads like "Login to Your Account" to a website that wants you to tell them your e-mail account and password).
2. local: The Edwardsville Intelligencer is near SIUE
3. local: Alestle is SIUE's own newspaper
4. self: The Ktravula article is labeled "For Immediate Release" — it's a direct press release from Efiwe.org
5. self: RiverBender.com is local coverage in Alton/Edwardsville, and is a direct copy of the same press release from Efiwe.org
6. local: The Edwardsville Intelligencer is near SIUE
7. self: Efiwe.org main website
8. self: Efiwe.org Facebook post
9. self: Efiwe.org's Instagram
10. self: Efiwe'org's Twitter
11. self: Efiwe.org's LinkedIn
12. self: Philip Alabi's own prose, and no evidence of editorial control: "We tell your story as you want it to be told."
13. local: Belleville News-Democrat is near SIUE
14. self: same press release again, marked "Content is submitted and reviewed before posting on STLtoday.com, but not verified for accuracy." and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is arguably near SIUE

Making 1 press release look like 3 independent sources isn't a good sign. --Closeapple (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new source that isn't based in/around Edwardsville and isn't derived from the press release. Igwatala (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The social media references will need to go, but there is now coverage on two continents. scope_creep (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The social media links have been removed. It looks good to me too. Igwatala (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources such as Nigeria News that have been addded to the article and the likelihood of further African coverage showing this is more than a local interest project Atlantic306 (talk).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Eddy Vodka Distillery[edit]

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

Non-notable company. There is no WP:INHERITORG from Heaven Hill. —cnzx (talk • contribs) 22:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Heaven Hill as per WP:ATD-M. Source searches are falling short to qualify a standalone article, but the suggested merge target article has only one lone passing mention in the form of a link to this article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is very little content here except the non-notable list of products and the apparently original research about water quality, and the Heaven Hill article already mentions the brand. Tacyarg (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional cruft on a nn brand. The parent article already mentions it; there's no suitable encyclopedi prose worth merging and there's no need to preserve the article history, since it only contains spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of Music in the Social and Behavioral Sciences[edit]

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

Non-notable book. The title gets 6 google hits. The article was started by William Forde Thompson, who is the author of the book. Vanity page. Was put through PROD, but not AfD. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources and this is using Wikipedia to promote his publication which is against policy. WP:NOTADVERT. He both edits his biography and this article with his account and several IPs like 58.172.242.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 58.172.253.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to promote both himself and the book Ammarpad (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: anyone else?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of secondary sources. PhilKnight (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Me too! Fails the GNG. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DJ R3DLINE[edit]

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

No reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the topic are cited, so he doesn't seem to meet GNG, and he doesn't seem to meet any other relevant WP:NM criteria either. KSFT ^(t|c) 00:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject seems to have many sources listing performances and venues; but none discussing the subject per se. Fails to qualify on the GNG/CREATIVE threshold. Lourdes 02:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Source 'ATV Motocross' is a national publication covering the professional sport of ATV Motocross Racing. 'do312' is a Chicago-based events company that also publishes events around the country under the 'doXXX' designation. The YouTube link shows a segment from The Big Ten Network's live broadcast, with Anthony 'Spice' Adams giving "DJ R3DLINE" a shout out. Discogs & MusicBrainz are approved sources on a large number of DJ profiles throughout Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zsmith105 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zemith, YouTube is an unreliable source and cannot count towards addressing notability concerns. None of the other sources you mention are either reliable or discuss the subject significantly. Do you have reliable sources that discuss DJ R3DLINE significantly? If you need help in understanding Wikipedia's notability guidelines, please feel free to ask. Thanks, Lourdes 00:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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