Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 September	18 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Urammoru temple[edit]

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

Removed PROD tag with no explanation. My concern was: Wholly unsourced article that is also promotional and a violation of NOTTRAVELGUIDE ("come and gather to visit Ammavaru to get the blessings by doing Pujas and rituals"). I'm also not sure that this temple even exists. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - not verifiable; no references and the picture is referred to by a different name on Bahadur Pentho. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:GNG, and WP:BEFORE. Googling, as linked aboive, I found nothing reliable, so I also looked at "Ammavaru Mahotsavam" and found even less. I see nothing that this would pass my standards for houses of worship. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 22 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shariyah, Ajman[edit]

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

There is no city of Shariyah in Ajman. This pointer is to an exclave of Ajman that contains Masfut and Sayh Mudayrah - there's no Shariyah. Unsourced in the first place, unknown today. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless uncited three-word article of dubious accuracy. Since the nominator has lived in the UAE for the past 25 years, I would take his word for it that the entity does not exist. Softlavender (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously closed as delete on 16 September 2018. Reopened and relisted at request of SportingFlyer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this AfD is based on the premise this city does not exist in Ajman, but Google Street Map has coverage of Ajman in that area and there's clearly a sign at 24.8182405,56.0958615 saying you're in/entering "Al Shiariyah." I asked to have this AfD opened back up in light of this finding, to see if any other information can be found or at least to help explain why this may have made it into a geodatabase. SportingFlyer talk 22:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per [1]. Google maps can be useful, but only as an additional source. » Shadowowl | talk 22:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on a street view photo, not Google Maps itself, which is not reliable at all in rural UAE. SportingFlyer talk 00:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Funnily enough, I was there the other day. It's where the Masfout police station is located. Masfout is a large village/small town which has blocks or areas. One area (not, note, a 'city' as per the article) is Shariyah. Another, just up the road, is Mansoura. They're not settlements in their own right, they're part of Masfout. I'd question whether we really want to list every block or area of a town this size and whether these suburbs are themselves notable. Same problem with our old friend, Sufayri up the road in Hatta. It's a block or area within the settlement of Hatta. Once we go down this rabbit hole, we'll be listing tens of thousands of such places. Every block in Dubai, Ajman Sharjah and every other emirate, for instance has a name. Five blocks near my house in Sharjah are Ghafia, Hazzana, Riqqa, Fisht and Sharq. Do we name them all? And, by the way, many names are popular. So pretty much every town has an Al Mansoura or a Hamadia. One exception here is Al Heera, which has a rich and documented (sourced!!!) history and used to be an emirate in its own right. Same as Al Khan and Hamriyah. So they're notable. Here's not, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're certainly getting closer to a positive result. I don't think we will actually list tens of thousands of such places, since most of the geodatabase dump has been tagged for cleanup. The question in this instance is whether this is a separate settlement, or a sub-jurisdiction of Masfout. If it's the former, we should keep the article, but based on my review of UAE governmental sources, that'll be difficult to verify. Probably best to "merge" the fact this is a district to the Masfout article? SportingFlyer talk 04:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Or just delete the article because it's not notable and the article is clearly unsourced, unverifiable and generally rubbish, as are the vast majority of the others? You wanna list one block of Masfout, you list 'em all! And without using OR I don't see how you'd even be able to do it. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a block of Masfout it must be documented somewhere, even if it's not in English. SportingFlyer talk 05:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be. But it's not notable. It fails WP:N as well as all the rest. And this is WAY too much time and discussion over a nine word stub of no value. Sorry... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it's important to attempt to verify these things. Just because an article lacks sources or only has nine words doesn't mean it's not notable - it's the topic that's notable, not the article. SportingFlyer talk 06:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right! It's the topic that's not notable! Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't be verified. It is unsourced and fails WP:V so there is nothing we could merge. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:58, 18 September 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. Consider turning this into a category. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional crossovers[edit]

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

Indiscriminate and largely unsourced; WP:LISTCRUFT that should be excluded per WP:NOT. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced with unclear notability criteria. "Just because it exists doesn't mean it should be a Wikipedia article" applies here._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a category in this case might be more appropriate instead, that is in the case where a crossover episode has its own separate article. —Mythdon 03:31, 24 September 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. (non-admin closure) Kpg jhp jm 01:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lights on the River[edit]

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

Non-notable film, does not appear to have received notable coverage in English or Russian (WP:GNG).--RTY9099 (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting inclusion criteria for a 1954 Soviet film. It ain't a Western blockbuster, but for is origins and era its enough. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The references only mention of the film, no detailed review.--RTY9099 (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has reliable sources coverage, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:17, 23 September 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. (non-admin closure) Kpg jhp jm 01:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Tale of the Forest Giant[edit]

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

Non-notable film, does not appear to have received notable coverage in English or Russian (WP:GNG).--RTY9099 (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it apparently does have enough sources to meet inclusion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The references only mention of the film, no detailed review.--RTY9099 (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has coverage in reliable sources, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:18, 23 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Villanueva[edit]

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

Promotional bio is sourced entirely to press releases and passing mentions that give no biographical detail. A BEFORE search is difficult as "Luis Villanueva" is a relatively common name and a number of false positives are returned in both English- and Spanish-language sources, however, I've been unable to find anything notable related to this individual. His company is currently hiring for someone to "maintain" his Wikipedia page [2]. Chetsford (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not really see how is he notable himself. If this article was called SOMOS Group...maybe. But most of the sourced things are not about him which makes the article itself irrelevant, and as per nom I cannot find any published secondary sources targeted to him and only him, thus breaking WP:PERSON. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:45, 22 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yevgeny Nikitin (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. I could only find a few softball interviews with Nikitin and profiles on film sites in Russian. Roles do not appear to be notable, nor are they in particularly notable films. Does not pass WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE.--RTY9099 (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - having acted in three TV episodes does not make an actor notable. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 22 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Croke Park railway station[edit]

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

Article fails WP:CRYSTAL (in that it discusses something that was planned a decade ago, and has not happened - and may never happen). By extension, and perhaps unsurprisingly given that the article covers a topic that *does not exist*, article also fails WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV (in that the only coverage of this proposed station was about a decade ago, and then only one or two mentions in the press). These mentions do not establish notability to the extent that would justify a standalone article (they barely justify a passing mention in the article on Croke Park itself. We do not need a standalone article to state "a station was proposed in 2007 - but was never built"). The only value this article has to the project is as a perfect example of why we have WP:FUTURE guidelines. Guliolopez (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Nothing heard of the proposal since, therefore uncertain if it will ever be built. Should it be built, then the article can be recreated, otherwise it is pointless to have an article on something that may never exist. Hzh (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:31, 21 September 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pets of Imran Khan[edit]

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

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

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

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

Completing contested PROD nomination on behalf of 80.215.156.205, who seems unsure about our deletion processes. The original PROD rationale was: "Wikipedia is not the daily mirror or a fan site. Khan is notable, his dog or the colour of his sock is of zero interest in an encyclopedia. The "Imran Khan sidebar" should be deleted as well, no need for a template about everything. ([3])" As nominator I am neutral unless I comment otherwise. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Such a relief. Thanks @Ivanvector:. --Saqib (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being the creator of the article, I would obviously say keep because I believe the topic meet basic GNG. And such a weird and unusual article can be kept per Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Saqib (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Saqib you are still expected to present refs that can claim notability. Per WP:ILIKEIT--DBig Xrayᗙ 18:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SamHolt6 puts it quite well. I could not have said this any better myself. --Saqib (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm a little concerned that this is a case of WP:CITOGENESIS - the article uses at least a few sources which document Wikipedia's coverage of Khan's dogs. I haven't reviewed in great detail but we'll need sources that can establish that Khan's pets were notable before Wikipedia wrote about them. To Saqib's point: it's entirely possible that they are, and we do have several articles on notable pets of notable world leaders. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While this page itself received enormous press coverage in several Pakistani, Indian and even British newspapers, but the article currently cite less than 5 news stories. Rest of the citations are published before this page creation. I will provide here some coverage to establish GNG. --Saqib (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easy keep vote for me. The subject has accrued WP:SIGCOV, both direct and tangential, in reliable sources (including two works of print media [4], [5]), has a claim to significance, and has a precedent on Wikipedia by way of Winston Churchill's pets, Pets of Vladimir Putin, etc. To begin, Imran Khan's pets have garnered coverage directly concerning them in regional/national publications, namely ones such as these [6][7] [8] that either report on or refute the possibility that Khan's animals played a part in his divorce. Either way, the coverage is directly concerned with the animals. I find the ARY News source (this one also makes mention [9] of the incident) to be pertinent to this AfD, as it states that Khan has been criticized for the going against Pakistani social norms by allowing his dogs in his house; this seems to be a credible claim to significance, and a case for why Khan's animals have a measure of encyclopedic significance. Moving on, Khan's late dog Sheru (per [10], a gift from a former president of Pakistan) also received several direct mentions in the Pakistani press (and one in the Daily Mail [11], which I am listing here as a testament to the dog's international exposure, not as a WP:RS), including one [12] that characterized a report of the dog being kicked out of Khan's house as "viral". Two other dogs of Khan's have accrued more coverage, for example this source [13] from The Print that covers the multiple events Khan's dogs have been involved in. Other animals owned by Khan likewise are covered, mostly as a result of him having to disclose [14] his personal wealth. And then of course there are the few articles that reference this page's existence, which is a WP:CITOGENESIS issue. That being said, the weight of quality coverage amassed by Khan's animals prior to August 2018 (when this article was created) should be more than enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:OTHERSTUFF.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pets are meeting the notability guidelines, plenty of coverage in reliable sources and there is precedence of pets related articles for pets belonging to heads of state! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Easily meets WP:GNG even with the meta/circular articles.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 19:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC); edited 19:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - his pets may warrant a brief mention in his article; this article is just a collection of random trivial details with no overall coherence. 93.148.174.11 (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the detailed coverage identified by SamHolt6, who's done a pretty good job putting this all together. I'm not really convinced that the details about the dogs' involvement in the divorce really count as more than trivial mentions, but they are mentioned trivially by many independent sources. Some of the others are quite in-depth reports about the dogs, though, and that tips it for me. As for the article having "no overall coherence", WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. And, of course, if there's an argument to delete the sidebar then it should be a separate discussion, but I strongly disagree. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because no clear reason was actually provided by the contesting IP, and because the subject meets WP:GNG by a significant margin as explained above or evidenced in the large number of reliable, multiple sources quoted in the article. Many of them much before Khan's election or for that matter his entry into mainstream politics. Very few other politicians, and certainly in the case of Pakistan, have had as much coverage on their pets, so this is not even mere trivial coverage. Also, this coverage is based on multiple, reliably-sourced, different stories and anecdotes as opposed to one or two events, so that itself negates that lone point. I will go the extent of saying that no other public figure has been discussed as much in the Pakistani public or media for their lifestyle and keeping of pets as much as Khan, after perhaps Jinnah. Musharraf might come a close second, and even his gifting of a dog is mentioned. Mar4d (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage in independent sources. Passes WP:GNG.SamHolt6 has provided a wonderful explanation. Knightrises10 (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no case for deletion as there's the obvious alternative of merger into the main article about Khan. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has reliable resources and is fine article. No reason for deleting. PakEditor (talk) 09:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources seem reliable and their is nothing wrong with this kind of article. There are many articles on Wikipedia about different pets of people like Vladimir Putin and US presidential dogs etc. Usman47 (talk) 16:19, 24 September 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Predictive Artificial Intelligence[edit]

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

Subset of an existing topic at Artificial intelligence. No claim of significance of the term itself to justify creation of a separate article. The proposed article includes information already covered in that article and other that could be added there. The term "Predictive Artificial Intelligence" is not mentioned in any of the 5 sources provided. I propose redirecting to Artificial Intelligence or to a section in that article if it is created. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary content fork. "Predictive artificial intelligence" isn't really a term, just "artificial intelligence" with the "predictive" modifier prepended. The article as it is is WP:OR, and I'm not finding any sources that show this is a topic in its own right. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 19:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has been used occasionally as a buzzword in health IT circles, e.g., [15], but I don't see any evidence that Predictive Artificial Intelligence is a subfield with its own in-depth reliable sourcing. Hence delete. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - a buzzword that isn't used in the references; article is thus WP:OR. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:24, 21 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Roundabout (meetup)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRITE. Clearly not notable, all of the sources in the article are primary. Nothing of note in Google or other searches. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline G11 because of the number of external links just one step away from "Click here to attend". Sourced principally to social media - soooo not notable. Cabayi (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references are Tweets, Meetup, a Medium blog, Facebook, Quora, Eventbrite. Nothing is independent coverage for GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:26, 21 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Pinnock Malin[edit]

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

Per WP:BEFORE searches, this subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:MUSICBIO. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources appears to exist at all. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is WP:BIO1E (writing the hymn God Our Father, Hear Us Pray), there's not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG (basically just census information) and there is no article on the hymn as a redirect target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:29, 21 September 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 Admiral Group. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant Insurance[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Sources tell us it is a good place to work and we can identify some key players. We also have an interview with the CEO (not an independent source) but nothing that suggests the company is notable. Could still be a redirect to the parent company. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Admiral Group, the parent company, in lieu of deletion as suggested as a possible option by the AfD nominator. No prejudice against undoing the redirect if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.
Cunard (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Admiral Group. Not independently notable, but worth a sentence or two there. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Admiral Group as per 1) WP:ATD-M and 2) it will improve the Admiral Group article, which only has a minor mention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 24 September 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 arguments by Cunard and others went into substantially more depth than the rationales to delete, and were not satisfactorily rebuked. (Note: I purposefully did not look at the DRV to avoid any prejudice in the close) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crescent Electric Supply Co.[edit]

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

promotional article for non notable company; sources are mere listings and announcements DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: a directory-like listing on an unremarkable distributor. Sources are passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is an odd one. The company's business may well be boring and not in the news, but it is a 100 year old company that's in the top 500 of US private companies by revenue. The writer was incredibly sloppy. If, as suggested by a tag, he is a paid editor, we need to let companies know about the poor quality that paid editors supply. Perhaps this article was done "on speculation" and the company told them to get lost. Nothing here, as written. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - On the undisclosed paid editing notice: I am sure that Breeze897 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of a Go Fish Digital employee (the same one that mastered Cougarsurf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). However, when I opened an SPI case, it was closed because the account was stale (see SPI archive). There is further evidence of the Go Fish Digital relantionship, since their employees frequently tweet about EliteFixtures, a subsidiary of Crescent Electric Supply Co. I planned to request speedy deletion with G5, but since the SPI was closed, it does not seem possible to do so. --MarioGom (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Nothing shows that the GNG or WP:NCORP is met. Lacks significant independent coverage.Sandals1 (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Expanding in the Face of a Trend". BusinessWeek. No. 1442. 1957-04-20. pp. 61–68.
  This is an extensive article about Crescent Electric Supply published in BusinessWeek in 1957.
  The article notes:
  
  By blanketing a seven-state, predominately rural area with 18 warehouses Crescent has made itself the midwest's largest electrical distributor.
  The article lists the seven states as Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois.
  The article notes:
  
  Service to the sprawling seven-state area shown in the map above has fattened the Crescent Electric Supply Co. of Dubuque, Iowa, into one of the biggest independent U.S. distributors of electrical apparatus and equipment. Already it has more warehouse space concentrated in one region than any other electrical distributor. And, this month, Crescent is opening its 18th branch warehouse—in Des Moines.
  This expansion has a twofold significance:
  For one thing, it's a logical next step along the path that has led Crescent to success in a region with fewer big cities and industries than many other parts of the country. Through a solid lineup of warehouse branches, Crescent gives small-town and farm customers every distribution service—complete inventories, quick deliveries, credit, and special assistance of all kinds. This way, Crescent comes out ahead of its big-city rivals and local competition that draws on city stocks.
  The article further notes that "The company puts a jealous guard around sales figures—but reliable industry sources place last year's at around $10-million".
  The article discusses the company's history: how it was founded by Titus B. Schmid in Dubuque "38 years ago this month", how a new branch was opened in Madison, Wisconsin, in 1923, and a new branch was opened in Davenport, Iowa, in 1924.
  The article notes that the company has 327 employees, 25,000 accounts on its customers list, and stocks 30,000 different items from 5,000 suppliers.
  The article then provides some negative coverage of the subject, noting that "Even as Crescent is expanding, it's grappling with urgent problems that have been common to the industry in the last several years" with gross and net margins "dropping steadily since 1952—despite a doubling in gross volume since the end of World War II".
  It also notes that "in 1925, General Electric named Crescent a distributor—and now, handling all GE products that pass through normal distribution channels, it's GE's largest independent full-line distributor".
2. Taplin, Nathaniel (2018-01-03). "Bitcoin Isn't a Currency, It's a Commodity—Price It That Way". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-01-09. Retrieved 2018-09-06.
  The article notes:
  
  Applying the same analysis to bitcoin suggests its price could face a steep fall if demand dries up. The cost of minting a bitcoin is as low as $3,224 in Louisiana, according to an analysis by the Crescent Electric Supply Co., one of the largest electrical suppliers in the U.S.
  This article does not provide significant coverage of the subject, but I am including here because it notes Crescent Electric Supply in 2018 is "one of the largest electrical suppliers in the U.S."
3. Lucy, Jim (2013-07-17). "Crescent Electric Supply Profile: Orchestrating Change". Electrical Wholesaling. Penton.
  The article's length is 2,584 words.
  The article notes:
  
  Crescent Electric was founded in Dubuque by Titus B. Schmid in 1919. An electrical contractor by trade, he was frustrated by how long it took for electrical manufacturers to ship products to Dubuque along the river from St. Louis or Minneapolis, so he started his own electrical distributorship to service the supply needs of other electrical contractors. Before too long, he opened branches down the river in Burlington and Davenport, Iowa, and about 90 miles away in Madison, Wis. Today, Crescent’s branch network stretches far beyond the Mississippi River. The company now has 1,700 employees and more than 130 branches in 27 states, and is steadily expanding into new markets with a mix of acquisitions and branch startups.
  ...
  As the company incorporates these initiatives into its operations, it’s also assessing new acquisitions or branch start-ups. Over the past two years Crescent has made three major acquisitions (McCullough Electric Co., Pittsburgh; Stoneway Electric Supply, Spokane, Wash.; and Lake Electric Supply, Storm Lake, Iowa.) It also purchased three branches of Broken Arrow Electric Supply in Lee’s Summit, Warrensburg and Warsaw, Mo., and opened new branches in Pinetop-Lakeside, Ariz., and Sidney, Mont.
4. Kickham, Victoria Fraza (2007-11-01). "Delivering solutions; Crescent Electric Supply uses service and knowledge to sell automation and control systems to industrial customers". Industrial Distribution. Reed Business Information. p. 36.
  The article is listed as a feature and the article's length is 1,273 words.
  The article notes:
  
  Crescent Electric's business is split 60-40 between traditional electrical accounts-contractors, utilities and government-and industrial OEM/MRO business. The latter portion has seen strong growth lately, helped by Crescent's 2003 purchase of Northwest Controls, an Ohio distributor of automation and control products. Crescent Electric has been growing by acquisition since its inception 90 years ago and was especially active on the M&A front in the 1970s. The company has grown from one location in 1919 to 126 locations in 26 states today, with roughly 1,700 employees.
  ...
  Like most companies serving the manufacturing industry, Crescent Electric is concerned about the stability of the U.S. economy. Slow growth in manufacturing coupled with continued high energy and raw materials costs could put capital expenditures on hold indefinitely, and that would hurt, says vice president of sales Dick Cody. At the same time, he says Crescent is diversified enough to sustain some blows over the long haul.
  The article notes:
  President: James Etheredge
  
  Headquarters: East Dubuque, Ill.
  
  Founded: 1919
  
  2006 Sales: $976.2 million
  
  Employees: 1,700
  
  Locations: 126
  
  Primary Products: Electrical, industrial automation and data communications products and systems.
5. "A Look At The Largest". Electrical Wholesaling. Penton. 2015-06-01.
  The article notes that they are publishing "capsule summaries of what's happening with some of the largest Top 200 distributors". The article notes:
  Crescent Electric Supply Co. Headquarters: East Dubuque, Ill. Senior executive: Marty Burbridge 2014 sales: $1.07 billion, an increase of about 4% over $1.03 billion in 2013 Employees: 1,800 Branches: 140 Buying/marketing group: IMARK ERP system: Eclipse After installing a new Eclipse ERP system and launching a new online storefront and in 2013, things were a little quieter for Crescent Electric Supply in 2014. The company did announce a number of mid-level personnel changes and said it plans to expand operations in the Minneapolis metropolitan area with the opening of a new facility in Minneapolis and the relocation of its St. Paul facility. In related news, the company's DataComm business currently located in Golden Valley, Minn., will be integrated into the Minneapolis facility. It also finalized the acquisition of Lake Electric Supply, Storm Lake, Iowa. Crescent has moved to a new updated ecommerce site that provides access to more than 200,000 products and allows customers to draw from the company's system-wide inventory of more than $120 million. In other company news, Crescent Electric Supply celebrated its 95th year in the electrical market on April 15. The company was founded in Dubuque, Iowa in 1919 by Titus B. Schmid.
6. Hogstrom, Erik (2006-09-24). "Crescent founded in Dubuque". Telegraph Herald.
  The articles does not have any quotations or interviews with the company's representatives.
  The article notes:
  
  By 1925, Crescent had been appointed a General Electric Lamp agent.
  The company experienced steady growth, expanding to five locations in 1930, eight by 1940, 25 by 1970.
  Crescent supplies a range of electrical contractors, from one-man shops to those capable of designing and installing multimillion-dollar systems.
  Other customers include investor-owned utilities, rural electric cooperatives, municipal utilities, industrial firms, schools, hospitals, colleges, hardware and appliance stores as well as discount stores and supermarkets.
  The article also notes that the company was founded by Titus B. Schmid in 1919 in Dubuque, Illinois. The article further notes that the company's corporate office is in East Dubuque and that it has more than 120 distribution locations in 25 states including New York and Alaska.
7. Dale, Bert (1952). "Fixture Sales Zoom at Crescent Electric". Electrical Consultant. Vol. 62. p. 42. ISSN 0361-4972. Retrieved 2018-09-12.
  The article notes:
  
  SOMETHING is going on, in the 16 branches of Crescent Electric Supply Company which cover all of Iowa and large portions of Illinois, Wisconsin and South Dakota. It's a big increase in lighting volume, largely on the commercial side: 90% over 1951 for the first quarter of this year — the latest figures available now. This substantial increase has been a continuing trend since a separate lighting department was established in the firm in 1945, under the supervision of Lighting Engineer Carl O. Christensen. Figures reveal that in 1941, lighting was only 5.8% of Crescent's full-time volume; in 1951, despite zooming figures in other departments, lighting fixtures accounted for 7.5% of all Crescent's business, including major appliances.
  The article further notes:
  Crescent was founded by Titus B. Schmid, its present president, in 1919. The original house at Dubuque has grown to include a manufacturing plant and 16 branches in four states, including among other employees 76 outside salesmen and 19 city counter-salesman.
  Lighting fixtures were always considred an important phase of the business by Mr. Schmid, but it was not until the establishment of a separate department that considerable advances were made. As in other full-line houses, all the salesmen sell some lighting at one time or another; but until Christensen 's advent such sales were often the result of demand or accident.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Crescent Electric Supply to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Two additional sources added. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed Crescent Electric Supply Co. and do not consider it to be overly promotional. The article states facts about the subject and does not use promotional language other than the sentence noting who its "top vendors" are.
Cunard (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Crescent Electric Supply received a substantial profile in BusinessWeek in 1957. The article noted the company was "the midwest's largest electrical distributor" and was "GE's largest independent full-line distributor".
An article published in The Wall Street Journal in 2018 noted that Crescent Electric Supply is "one of the largest electrical suppliers in the U.S."
An article in a Penton publication said that Crescent Electric Supply had $1.07 billion in sales in 2014.
Cunard (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have expanded the article using the sources listed above.
Cunard (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:NCORP due to lacking sufficient reliable sources proving notability. The article seems very promotional in nature and also is serving as a company directory, neither of which is appropriate on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 September 11 to allow further review of the sources provided late in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has substantial coverage in reliable sources as identified by Cunard particularly the long Business Week article, electrical wholesaling article and industrial distribution sources so clearly passes WP:CORPDEPTH Atlantic306 (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the above, there exists a Hoover's profile (behind firewall) and this "Encyclopedia Dubuque" article: [16] Net-net, we have enough reliable, independent sources, some of which are significantly more than passing mentions, to write an article. Martinp (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martinp (talk · contribs), the "Encyclopedia Dubuque" article is a very good find because it is based on an entry about Crescent Electric Supply in a hardcover encyclopedia. Thank you.
http://www.encyclopediadubuque.org/index.php?title=ABOUT_ENCYCLOPEDIA_DUBUQUE says:
The basis of Encyclopedia Dubuque is the hardcover book, Dubuque: The Encyclopedia. Written in 1991 by Randolph W. LYON and published by First National Bank of Dubuque (now U.S. Bank), Dubuque: The Encyclopedia was designed as a table-top reference to Dubuque's history. Organized in alphabetical order, the entries were quick to locate and easy to read. ...
...
As Dubuque reached its sesquicentennial, the Dubuque City Council announced that it would fund ten applications from local historical societies or groups with projects involving Dubuque history. The Carnegie-Stout Library Foundation chose to apply for a grant to convert the aging printed edition of Dubuque: The Encyclopedia to an expandable digital format. This grant application was approved in 2008, establishing the threshold for a new and exciting approach to local history.
The encyclopedia Dubuque: The Encyclopedia has an entry on Crescent Electric Supply company preserved in its earliest revision at http://www.encyclopediadubuque.org/index.php?title=CRESCENT_ELECTRIC_SUPPLY_COMPANY&oldid=570. The encyclopedia provides four paragraphs of coverage about the company's history.
Cunard (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments at the DRV. All or or almost all of Cunard's sources except for the BusinessWeek article either fail to meet the depth requirements at WP:CORPDEPTH for only containing directory-like, routine information about the company or the independence requirements at WP:COPRIND, which specifically warns against using trade magazines. What is left is insufficient to meet to meet WP:NCORP. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the sources presented above fail WP:CORPDEPTH; they are passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. The seemingly in-depth pieces are from trade publications, so likely fail WP:ORGIND; they are known for running puffed-up articles with little editorial input. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patar knight (talk · contribs) and K.e.coffman (talk · contribs), what's your opinion of the Encyclopedia Dubuque article? It is local, but it seems to be another in-depth, reliable, independent source. Martinp (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tertiary source, which should always be used with more care than secondary sources. It's author, no matter how admirable his dedication to local history may be, seems to be a high school teacher with little to no formal teaching in history. [17] The sources in the article are either all short, routine stories that woudl fail WP:CORPDEPTH or non-independent (the company website). It may be a good external link, but I would not use it to evaluate notability or as a source. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Indeed, WP:TERTIARY provides (reasonable) guidance on source preference when writing an article. However, WP:NCORP explicitly mentions encyclopedia articles as examples of substantial coverage. And that one good source should be nonlocal, which in this case the BW article satisfies and so OK that this one is local. And if we require authors of potential sources to have "formal training in history", then I think a lot of our sources in other articles will be in trouble. By my read, WP:CORP (including CORPDEPTH and other elements of the alphabet soup) is satisfied quite well overall for this company. It's an interesting edge case, since it does seem to be a 2nd tier company of fairly local interest, but I don't think we should be more demanding that what settled policy is. Having said all that, am now signing off for a few days, and have no horses in this race (beyond continuing bemusement that 10 years after I helped rescue Arch Coal in a rather nonstandard DRV, we still seem to have allergic reactions to company articles while embracing pop culture articles and geographic stubs with much less depth of sourcing...but I digress.) Martinp (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement for one non-local source is a necessary requirement, but not a sufficient requirement. There are obviously many cases where formal training in the subject discipline is not required, most notably newspaper articles, but in those cases those sources are reliable because they're published by an organization with a reputation for fact checking that would be a hedge against mistakes. An encyclopedia focused on one small city, filled with non-notable entries, authored by someone with no formal training, and originally published by a bank does not encourage confidence.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ordered by date of publication (from oldest to newest), these are the six strongest sources about Crescent Electric Supply:
1. 20 April 1957 profile in BusinessWeek
2. April 1969 cover story in Iowa Business & Industry magazine (link to cover^{Internet Archive}). The cover notes:
  Crescent Electric Supply Company has fanned out over the midwest with a "localized" service concept that has boosted it to the largest distributor in this area. It took Crescent 50 years to establish 29 branch outlets and — one by one — put its inventory, services and helping-hand concept. This April the company celebrates its golden anniversary. The four sons of the founder Titus B. Schmid are shown on the cover. They are, left to right, Thomas B. Schmid, president; William T. Schmid, James A. Schmid and John Schmid. The Crescent territory now serves electrical utilities, contractors and dealers in parts of nine states. Electric supplies are its largest volume division. Major appliances are another. Household appliances are another and a growing segment is its lighting division. For a story about how a company started with a young man's idea in 1919 and blossomed out into a giant distributor, please turn to Page 24.
3. February 1972 cover story in McGraw-Hill's Electric Wholesaling magazine titled "Crescent's information system: The Key to Controlling 29 Branches" (link to cover^{Internet Archive}).
4. A encyclopedia entry in Randolph W. Lyon's book Dubuque: The Encyclopedia published in 1991 by First National Bank of Dubuque (now a part of U.S. Bancorp).
5. 24 July 2006 profile in Telegraph Herald titled "Crescent founded in Dubuque".
6. July 2013 cover story from Penton's Electrical Wholesaling magazine titled "Orchestrating Change: How Crescent Electric Supply is blending its proud history with 21st century sales, marketing and management strategies" (link to cover^{Internet Archive}).
The articles were published in 1957, 1969, 1972, 1991, 2006, and 2013. Crescent Electric Supply has received significant coverage in reliable sources over many decades.
Cunard (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The three sources that are not trade magazines are:
1. 20 April 1957 profile in BusinessWeek
2. 1991 encyclopedia entry in the hardcover book Dubuque: The Encyclopedia
3. 24 July 2006 profile in Telegraph Herald
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience says "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary". This requirement is fulfilled by the national publication BusinessWeek. It is fine for the other sources to be local sources.
Cunard (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per User:Cunard. I think this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH as exemplified by the Wall Street Journal calling it "one of the largest electrical suppliers in the U.S.". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:N (I agree with Cunard's reading). Hobit (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP --Jay (talk) 02:08, 25 September 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 against recreation should better sources be found, per WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beybala Khankishiyev[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, I can't find mention of him on Google or academic databases. Rosguill^talk 23:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not at all military-related and should be delisted. Kges1901 (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Icewhiz (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I suspect we may have the transliterated name wrong. I did find and link the ruwiki entry and azwiki entry~~, but haven't found this in the azwiki yet~~. beyond possibly passing NPROF, I think the supervisor of the Insurance industry in Azerbaijan would be notable today.az - we generally assume heads of similar regulatory bodies are notable.Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article contains several claims that would pass WP:PROF, and although not directly referenced, I have no particular reason to doubt them either. Searching for sources on Google etc. is not a good strategy for a Soviet academician; any sources that are out there are unlikely to be English, well-indexed, or even online at all. – Joe (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There aren't any refs in the article that verify notability, they are 404, trivial or similar. I did a copyvio check because it looks like a copy and paste, returned nothing. This was probably an obituary. Google returned an entry saying he was a civil servant of medium rank. This wouldn't get past AFC so we shouldn't keep it. Szzuk (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not noted, cant find references about him. Definitely fails WP:BIO --Jay (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. In the future, perhaps an Azerbaijani-speaking Wikipedian could bring forth sources that'd support an article here. -The Gnome (talk) 09:06, 25 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zulfiqr[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSERIES. » Shadowowl | talk 14:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. » Shadowowl | talk 14:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. » Shadowowl | talk 14:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search doesn't produce any coverage in the independent RS about the series so fails to meet basic GNG.. also fails WP:V. --Saqib (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What Saqib has said. --Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:04, 17 September 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) 06:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faysal Manzoor Khan[edit]

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

Writer, and television producer are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:DIRECTOR.

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:DIRECTOR and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Saqib (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the person has worked in more than 100 projects. Those TV series meet Wikipedia guidelines of WP:television. He is also worked as content head and have article on IMDB too.His work met wikipedia guideline WP:Directors. User:Lillyput4455(talk) — Note to closing admin: Lillyput4455 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

OK but you need to provide reliable sources for validation of the claims. --Saqib (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn and THE NEWS are reliable sources than why you remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lillyput4455 (talk • contribs)

You're citing citations, but the citations does not even mention the subject of this AfD. --Saqib (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recently you reverted my source from reviewit.pk while it did mention the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lillyput4455 (talk • contribs)

If you think reviewit.pk is a RS, then you need to consult WP:IRS. --Saqib (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable even if he "worked in more than 100 projects of Pakistan industry"[18] was correct. Orientls (talk) 07:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is creator of many famous and notable series in Pakistan and meet Wikipedia guide lines for WP:PERSON.Lillyput4455 (talk)

Then it should be easy for you to cite a few reliable sources. Orientls (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as Subject article has reliable citations and has won for PTV national awards for his services. He also worked in film Welcome to London and currently associated with many projects.Lillyput4455 (talk)

Note Lillyput4455 voted !keep twice and trying to secure keep !votes for this BLP as one see here. --Saqib (talk) 07:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have seen ONE and one only article that would count something towards the notability. As per WP:PERSON Lillyput4455 is calling on, actually the basic criteria says he needs multiple published secondary sources that are reliable. And no, sources that are only for his shows are not the ones as they do not refer to the subject of the article but his work. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not noted enough to grant him an article on Wiki. Fails WP:BIO for notability --Jay (talk) 02:12, 25 September 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Yasmin Ali[edit]

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

Not close to passing WP:NMODEL. Promotional. Sources in the article are mainly listings in agencies - the odd source out is a Knit magazine interview. Icewhiz (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing any coverage in RS. NickCT (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Hoary (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ferdous 14:59, 23 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Capt Muthukrishnan Iyyappan[edit]

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

I earlier PRODED this but it was removed by page creator. There's no WP:RS that can be found and WP:NOTABILITY is in doubt. ShunDream (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 13:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable military person, lacks sig. coverage in reliable sources. Notice that Muthukrishnan Iyyappan has previously been deleted four times under A7. I have created a redirect from that title, as well as from the modification Muthu Krishnan Iyyappan. Sam Sailor 07:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Army captains do not pass WP:SOLDIER. It does seem his military service or tenure as CEO of Eka Academy garnered SIGCOV for GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 10:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. Please understand that "Territorial Army" is not "Regular Army". These are citizens who contribute to the Army (much difference from the conscription model of many countries). The reason why I had put this persons biography is due to the following reasons:-

1. This officer was the first ever officer of Territorial Army to be seconded to the Regular Army - to enable him to serve a tenure in the Siachen Glacier.
2. This officer was the first ever officer of Territorial Army to serve in the Siachen Glacier.
3. This officer was the first ever officer of Territorial Army to command the troops of Regular Army
I understand that this article might have been deleted several times before - probably because there was no WP:RS. However, in this article, I have given WP:RS - from 2 publicly available magazines - and one of them is a specialized magazine for defence. Maratawarrior (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2018 (IST)

Delete whether Territorial or Regular Army, this officer has not commanded in combat at a significant rank, failing WP:MILPEOPLE/SOLDIER. Many, many, many, Indian Army captains have served on the Siachen Glacier without being written up in Wikipedia. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. @Buckshot06 - Many Indian Army Captain have served on Siachen Glacier - but how many TA officers have? Please understand the nature of TA - being a citizens volunteer army, they are not authorized to command a combat unit. However, this officer had broken ranks to set precedent to be the first officer of Territorial Army to serve in the Glacier. Maratawarrior (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2018 (IST)
Delete lots of claims but nothing of particular note that would support having an article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. @MilborneOne - Don't you think the precedence that the officer has made warrants a mention ? Please understand the nature of Territorial Army and the fact that the officer has done something substantial which was even put in such a professional and peer reviewed magazine as aviation defence etc., Maratawarrior (talk) 15:49, 24 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmudul Hasan (imam)[edit]

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

Sources include listing at British Bangladeshi “Power 100”, "British Bangladeshi Power & Inspiration", and profiles at employers. BEFORE does not bring much else on this individual - though there is a famous cricketer, a Rana Plaza Disaster survivor, and a few other people with the same name which makes filtering out results difficult - I did fine a one sentence mention here. Icewhiz (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ferdous 15:00, 23 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faith in London[edit]

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

Doesn't meet GNG. Sources in article are related to the producer, and a brief mention in RSes as a runner-up in the young segment of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation Faith Shorts award. Not much more found in BEFORE. Icewhiz (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the claims in the article, I really can't find evidence that this really passes NFILM. Many of the sources listed are in passing and some aren't in places that would be considered reliable. The article also has a definite promotional tone to it, so I'm curious to know whether there was some undisclosed paid editing going on here since many of the articles created by the same editor have the same issue, some of which are more promotional sounding. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ReaderofthePack: my suspicion (after reviewing non-deleted articles in the creator's creation list up to #200) is that they were creating articles on British-Bengali people of some minor community note (both in the London area, and in the north, e.g. Birmingham) - using various British-Bengali lists. I'm not sure of a COI here (unless promoting British-Bengali people is COI) - but there are copyvio concerns (which got the creator indef blocked). On film makers, singers, dangers, etc. they also created an article for several of the works (e.g. - in this case - look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Elephant in the Room (film) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tariq Chow. For Hannan Majid - they created the small production company they own - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainbow Collective - and every documentary they produced. I suspect there is more nomination to do (I'm still going to review the ones under 200) - in some cases I didn't nominate what I though was borderline, and I avoided singers/songwriters all together (in some cases - with multiple articles for singles) - since I'm less versed in song notability.Icewhiz (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a bit of a relief if this is just a case of over-exuberance as opposed to him being say, a freelancer or marketing person working for a local agency. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFILM. I can't source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:34, 17 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FreeSolo Entertainment[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Press releases are not independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One would think with the Billboard announcement that this is notable, but I can't find anywhere that this "joint venture" with major labels did anything. There are two press releases already included in the article, and every other piece of writ I can find (other than the briefest of casual mentions) is based on these two press releases. Therefore the only independent, reliable source with in-depth coverage is Billboard, so GNG is not met. GNG aside, it does not appear this company has done anything, anything at all. Therefore I don't see how notability of any sort is achieved, even by the most lenient interpretation. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:42, 18 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voices from the Camps[edit]

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

Self sourced to producer (filmsforfood being a subsidiary of rainbow). Little much else found in a BEFORE for additional sources. Icewhiz (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ferdous 15:17, 23 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Ok Here, Not Ok Anywhere[edit]

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

90 second youtube clip. Was not able to find much in terms of RSes beyond the Daily Telegraph piece in the article which itself is more about the campaign by War on Want than the video itself. Icewhiz (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even with worldwide collective ADD this is still too short to have independent encyclopedic notability. It's a campaign, Delete or Merge to Adidas, or the director, or the larger campaign it was part of. Softlavender (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge somewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see how a 90 second video with a low view count [19] can have an article on it. The video attracted few interest, and there are millions of videos around that attracted more interest. I doubt if it is even worth merging to anything, given that news sources like the BBC did not even mention the video by name in its coverage - [20], suggesting that it's the campaign that the media was interested in, not the video, therefore the campaign (rather than the video) may merit at best a single line mention in War on Want or Adidas. Fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ferdous 15:19, 23 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saima Chowdhury[edit]

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

Video blogger / Youtuber. Sources mainly include interviews in regional/ethnic outlets. Little coverage beyond what's in the article, and definitely not meeting SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as proposed. -- Hoary (talk) 01:45, 19 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hamja Ahsan[edit]

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

Promotional (as well as other NPOV issues). This individual is mainly known for campaigning for the release of his brother - Syed Talha Ahsan (our article has issues - convicted in the US for running a pro-Jihda website [21]). While he gets mentioned in the context of his brother, and there has been some coverage of this subject - neither rises up to SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lede and most of the article describes him as an artist, but the sources are about his more notable older brother, Hamaj is mentioned in the sources only as participating in the campaign to get his brother out of jail. My searches have failed to find WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:56, 18 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

China Chowdhury[edit]

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

Promotional. Dance teacher / dancer / choreographer. Sources in article include a listing in British Bengladeshi Who's who, organizations she's involved with, a piece on BBC Asian on the group she's with - Taal Torongo, and an award from Channel S. In my BEFORE I was not able to locate much else (though one does find other Chowdhurys' (common name) after China (the country). Icewhiz (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lack of significant coverage too. Lorstaking (talk) 18:26, 19 September 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) 06:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Aldouweghri[edit]

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

This article appears to be an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. That in itself is not a reason for speedy deletion. There is a claim of significance here, that he is the first - credible? probably not - that he is the first Saudi person to ride a car around a Wall of death. What would seem to me the appropriate reason for via WP:AFD process deletion is WP:BLP1E. All the other assertions:

"He is from Saudi Arabia Alqassim Unaizah"
That he is a Flight dispatcher
That he has created businesses that appear to be Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill private companies
and so on

not assist an assertion of WP:ANYBIO notability. In my opinion, this WP:BLP is a {{Db-person}} WP:A7 candidate.
Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Admins, First of all, Saeed ALdouwrghri, not me it's a big family in Saudi Arabia and Saeed name many people have it. who write This article User:SadKSA And this page were Draft:Saeed Aldouweghri And I find it and I post it under my name and this bad what I did. About deleted this page I asked my self after 100 years my son will ask about Centrifugal force and about wall of death and he will read about it here in wiki who have a strong heart to do it he will find so many peoples around the did this in the history but no one from Arab did it because this page will be deleted it. ALdouweghri (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALdouweghri (talk • contribs)

Delete sources appear to be either this person's own Youtube videos, or are about the concept of a Wall of death and don't mention this person. Almost certainly an autobiography. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References were from newspapers and TV and the other personal information was from his account on social media. If the page needs professional to edit please help me to make it rightALdouweghri (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Admins, First of all, Saeed ALdouwrghri, not me it's a big family in Saudi Arabia and Saeed name many people have it. who write This article User:SadKSA And this page were Draft:Saeed Aldouweghri And I find it and I post it under my name and this bad what I did. About deleted this page I asked my self after 100 years my son will ask about Centrifugal force and about wall of death and he will read about it here in wiki who have a strong heart to do it he will find so many peoples around the did this in the history but no one from Arab did it because this page will be deleted it. ALdouweghri (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sup guys, ALdouweghri you have no right to copy my article. I want this article to be under my name I'm the first one who wrote it. And BTW this guy Saeed Aldouweghri if you google it in Arabic or English he is the first and the only one who drives at wall of death SadKSA (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadKSA (talk • contribs) 14:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Brother and sister, I hope you can keep this article for many reasons. First true he is the first and only who drive at a wall of death And he is influence on social media. And successful businessman who start from Zero. We have a lot of arb are amazing people but no one writes about them at Wikipedia only I see the bad people like who did they bad things such as 11/11 So I do not want to delete this Ali Essaam (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not noted enough to grant him an article on Wiki. Fails WP:BIO for notability --Jay (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete Not seeing any significant coverage in reliable sources sufficient enough to meet the notability guidelines..--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:16, 25 September 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kantharalak United F.C.[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Sources in the article are blog posts, I can't find anything better online. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 11:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 12:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 12:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This team has Public website new source. https://robrownews.blogspot.com/2018/08/mini-league.html and https://robrownews.blogspot.com/2018/08/blog-post_893.html in reference. Aquaelfin (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquaelfin, Please see WP:BLOGS, this source is very far from being a reliable source that can count towards notability. Please refrain from creating new articles on these clubs until you understand the rules of what is notable for inclusion and what is not. Most if not all of these recent club creations will need to be deleted. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is everyone sure we can't keep this because of the logo alone? Fails WP:GNG, WP:FOOTYN, no reliable sources. SportingFlyer talk 04:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everybody. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Couldn't identify any third-party coverage. FourFourTwo.com, which is doing profiles for all the teams in the Amateur League, doesn't seem to have got round to profiling the teams in their region yet. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:56, 20 September 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. Boson (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swathi Naidu[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Refs are all listings, mentions or passing reference. No reliable sources discuss or talk about this actor. Fails WP:ACTOR Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks reliable sources. As per nomination, fails WP:NACTOR. Jmertel23 (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Easily fails WP:GNG. The references which are found in the article just do not establish notability that is needed. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources and fails WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources and failing NACTOR. Strikerforce^Talk 14:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete — Fails WP:NACTOR by a mile or so. Also, I predict it would snow today (or tomorrow, I am not ~~a warlord~~ an admin).
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 13:24, 20 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anwarul Hoque[edit]

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

Former radio presenter on ethnic radio station. Sources in the article include a very brief listing at his former employer, a radio show listing at his employer, a (possibly self published - Matador) book in which he is mentioned briefly in a list context, and a 1.5 mention is a list of local awards (one of 27 individuals in a Birmingham Bengali award). BEFORE doesn't bring much else, though there is a Md doctor, a Police officer, and a restaurateur/scammer with the same name which seem more notable (though probably not wiki notable). Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawkat Hashmi. Icewhiz (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable radio presenter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 24 September 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bozdar Wada[edit]

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

No reliable sources. The population in the infobox contradicts the Mapcarta data and seems implausible. While towns (if this indeed is more than a village) are presumed to be notable, information about them must still be verifiable. I don't see anything verifiable here beyond name and coordinates, and even that is a stretch. Huon (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GEOLAND as it clearly exists, mentions in English-language articles such as: [22] and appears to have mentions in non-English as well. We do need a population revision though! SportingFlyer talk 18:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added a population revision from the Paksitani census. Clearly exists/verifiable per WP:GEOLAND. SportingFlyer talk 03:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GEOLAND as it has now been verified, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this is kept, all other unverifiable information should also be scrubbed. There are, to my knowledge, currently at least two errors in the page; I'll get rid of those immediately. I'll also note that WP:GEOLAND speaks of a general presumption. There's no doubt that Bozdar Wada exists, but is that enough to establish notability? "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." Apparently people living there means that we can do without information beyond statistics and coordinates? Huon (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a gazetteer, and per WP:GEOLAND populated places are presumed to be notable. This town has 16,000 people in it and is legally designated and verifiably exists, which is enough for WP:GEOLAND since it's likely sources exist somewhere. SportingFlyer talk 20:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GEOLAND. James500 (talk) 07:17, 22 September 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 Legitimacy of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Clear consensus to not keep. Less clear if it should be deleted outright or merged, but several of the people arguing to delete also indicate a selective merge would be acceptable, so going with that. This should be a selective merge, only moving the most significant and well-sourced material, with regard to WP:UNDUE. I encourage whoever does the merge to read the full discussion here and use that for guidance. Leave a redirect.

A minor complication is that this term has also been used with respect to Libya. If we've got an existing article that discusses the term in that context (or one is written in the future), feel free to turn the redirect into a WP:DAB page. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitarian bombing[edit]

TRUTH = PROPAGANDA? CENSORSHIP = TRUTH? Wikipedia = BATTLEFIELD?!

Not only did Václav Havel assign "humanism" to the ILLEGAL bombing of Yugoslavia, targeted predominantly against civilian targets (hospitals, bridges, admninistrative buildings etc.) - which legally is defined as TERRORISM (see TERRORISM DEFINITION) -, but his father Václav Maria and gay uncle Miloš also made propaganda films for Adolf Hitler, NSDAP and the Third Reich during the WW2 in their Barrandov Film Studios. During the so called "communist dictatorship" the "dissident" Václav Havel owned and drove multiple western - imported luxury cars, including Mercedes-Benz (see Václav Havel's private automobiles), which none of the millions of the Communist Party members, the highest ranked not excluding, could ever afford and would ever dare. It is obvious that not the authors of this article, but the promoters of its deletion are PROPAGANDA AGENTS. Václav Havel was a FREEMASON (see VACLAV HAVEL FREEMASON) - so who are the deletion promoters?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.87.32.16 (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Significance? Looks more like anti-NATO Putinist-style propaganda rather than a proper article Openlydialectic (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 15:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 15:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – WP:TNT (Blow it up and start over) may be applicable here. I can't say whether or not this should be deleted, renamed, merged or kept, but this seems to be mostly notable, especially due to its inclusion in The New York Times. If it is deleted due to the propaganda aspect, it should probably be recreated, as long as there isn't any bias. Redditaddict6 9 15:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well what about whataboutism? I see more references to this as a euphemism in the Libya/Syria conflicts than the Serbia one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selective) to Legitimacy of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (or alternatively NATO bombing of Yugoslavia). This a POVFORK, but there is merit to present the Russian view there.Icewhiz (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Undecided - I will come back soon to this. It is true that this term has been more frequently used to report the incidents of Middle Eastern and North African civil wars. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment below. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge to Legitimacy of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia; used in this context, so a mention is warranted, but not as a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This subject also covers bombing in Libya.[23] शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cleanup required, but that isn't a reason for deletion. Nom hasn't provided any real policy-based reasoning for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: no indication that this term has any lasting significance. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Legitimacy of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. This is a minor part of the conversation about the legitimacy of that war/bombing campaign.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete the article, and copy whatever relevant (if any) to Legitimacy of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. --Jay (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the subject is evidently not independently notable, if at all. Despite the convoluted prose of the nomination itself, as above, the article indeed does not merit a place in Wikipedia and should, at best, be confined to a Merge of whatever can be sourced to "Legitimacy of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia." -The Gnome (talk) 09:03, 25 September 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zuyud[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND. It may be a tribal location, wherever it may be, but it's not a settlement. I am pleased to be able to tell you there is no Zuyud tribe in the UAE (per ISBN: 9781860631672, which is authoritative). Also this is the last of these articles. I'm done. Best. Alexander. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inaccurate, unreliable three-word "article" from a source full of massive amounts of misinformation. Softlavender (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced —AE (talk • contributions) 10:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has a source, but it's impossible to currently verify. SportingFlyer talk 03:22, 18 September 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. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No issue, lelo tissue[edit]

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

Can't find in-depth coverage in secondary sources to establish notability. Dee 03 17:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 17:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Störm (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Phrase is of Urdu language and there would be related coverage in the Urdu-language newspapers. Some refs are already there for WP:V purpose. Störm (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Simply stating that there "would be" other sources is not going to suffice. Urdu sources can also be added to the article if at all they exist and are found. Two of the sources currently in the article - Pakistan Today and Daily Pakistan - are verbatim copies of each other. The NDTV source has a mere passing mention of the advert. The only other source is india.com which some editors do not consider to be WP:RS. The topic fails WP:SIGCOV to warrant a standalone article and is already covered in a single line in Mauka Mauka. Dee 03 18:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simply going through Category:Television commercials by country will tell that there are dozens of article related to the TV ads and it depends on country to country. In Pakistani case, this is the most notable TV ad. Störm (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will vote later if you tell me that if there can be an article about Indian advertisement Mauka Mauka , then why not about a Pakistani ad that was actually a reply to that? It would be better if an encyclopedia contains articles related to both ads that were made as a result of cricket rivalry. Knightrises10 (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article on Mauka Mauka simply because of the sheer amount of coverage that the advertisement campaign has received. Your argument on why this article should be kept seems to revolve around WP:OTHERSTUFF which should be avoided in a deletion discussion. Dee 03 18:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say it should be kept? I asked a question and you answered. Knightrises10 (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may not have actually voted but, from what I can comprehend, your comment does read like you are making an argument for keep. Dee 03 14:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep According to this source, the commercial vent viral and was repeatedly "aired on every channel in Pakistan". Apparently, it is not an ordinary commercial judging by the response received. This article says it is one of the most-viewed Pakistani commercials, receiving 4.3 million hits under 19 hours. Mar4d (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Aired on every channel in Pakistan" sounds like the source is WP:SENSATIONALizing the response for the advert. Also fame/popularity does not equal to notability, so the response or the number of views for the advert does not automatically make the topic notable - see WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:FACTORS. Dee 03 14:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 14:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 14:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of significant coverage in secondary sources that have been added to the article. Son of Kolachi (talk) 05:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Son of Kolachi: There isn't much coverage in secondary sources, at least in the article. Knightrises10 (talk) 11:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But we are missing Urdu/Sindhi language sources. Störm (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Three keeps, but little in the way of secondary sources being added?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Meets criteria. Has significant coverage. This is an example. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:53, 23 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siqattah[edit]

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

Source not linked/unverifiable. No reliable location given for settlement. Fails WP:GEOLAND. Pin points to an unsettled location inside the Omani border. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inaccurate, unreliable, three-word "article", from a source full of massive amounts of misinformation. Softlavender (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced —AE (talk • contributions) 10:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's not in UAE, it appears to be in Oman right over the Omani border. I'll update the article. SportingFlyer talk 00:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a source confirming the coordinates, but nothing WP:RS about the place. However, the only thing I could see named in Google Maps and Google Satellite View was a Toyota dealership.

The corresponding Norwegian article, translated from the English, includes a source: Gazeteer [sic] of the United Arab Emirates. Washington, D.C. : Defense Mapping Agency, 1987. It seems to be print-only, so I've no idea if it mentions Siqattah. Narky Blert (talk) 17:51, 22 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Riyamah[edit]

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

Unsourced, fails WP:V and WP:GEOLAND. Pin points to unnamed area of housing near Habhab. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Uncited, inaccurate three-word "article". Softlavender (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced —AE (talk • contributions) 10:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a settlement at 25.54614°N, 56.05687°E called Riyamah on OpenStreetMap near Al Taween/Tawian. Are we sure it's not mentioned in any local sources? As noted, the Fujairah census is unhelpful. SportingFlyer talk 03:21, 18 September 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. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flashblock[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Only passing mentions in sources and literature. Declined PROD. wumbolo ^^^ 08:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it only took minutes to find and add several RS reviews describing it as one of the most popular extensions. Was WP:BEFORE actually done? Widefox; talk 14:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing adequately establishes notability. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 17 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murrah[edit]

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

Unsourced. Fails WP:V and WP:GEOLAND. Pin points to location near known settlement at Bithnah. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Plainly inaccurate, uncited three-word "article". Softlavender (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced —AE (talk • contributions) 08:52, 17 September 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.

Just adding a note that this article did have one reference when it was created, but that reference was removed per the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2010#Fallingrain.com. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masah, Fujairah[edit]

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

Unsourced, fails WP:V and WP:GEOLAND. Pin points to Masafi, which may be the source of the confusion. There is an Al Massa School in Dibba, but no settlement of that name. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 07:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 07:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 07:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced —AE (talk • contributions) 07:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, uncited, plainly inaccurate. Softlavender (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:38, 17 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lakayym[edit]

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

Unsourced. Fails WP:V and WP:GEOLAND. Pin points to former settlement but located in Musandam, Oman. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both completely inaccurate and unreferenced. Softlavender (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 07:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 07:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 07:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced —AE (talk • contributions) 07:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's in Oman, looks like a paddock at best though. SportingFlyer talk 03:26, 18 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hatiyah[edit]

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

Unsourced, fails WP:V and WP:GEOLAND. Pin points to settlement of Asimah. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 07:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 07:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 07:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced —AE (talk • contributions) 07:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inaccurate, uncited, unreferenced three-word article. Softlavender (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:38, 17 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harf, Fujairah[edit]

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

Unsouced, fails WP:V and WP:GEOLAND. Pin points to location in Oman! Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 07:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 07:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 07:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced —AE (talk • contributions) 07:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly inaccurate, uncited nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:47, 17 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harat Zutut[edit]

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

Unsourced. Fails WP:V and WP:GEOLAND. Pin points to corniche at Dibba. Name means 'Neighbourhood of the stingy people' in Arabic. Someone's having a laugh... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 07:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 07:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 07:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced —AE (talk • contributions) 07:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uncited, unreferenced, inaccurate three-word "article". Softlavender (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:47, 17 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haqil[edit]

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

Unsourced. Fails WP:V and WP:GEOLAND. Pin points to area of housing contiguous to Al Badiyah. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 07:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 07:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 07:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced —AE (talk • contributions) 07:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, uncited, inaccurate three-word "article". Softlavender (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment possible suburb of Bidiyah, but I can't confirm it. SportingFlyer talk 03:31, 18 September 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. Boson (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despacito 2 (meme)[edit]

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

Copying PROD concern about the article:

An—albiet [sic] very popular—internet meme. The article has just two references, and that too to unreliable sources.

Although this meme is extremely popular, there's no significant, in-depth coverage of it in reliable sources for it to satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 05:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC); edited 05:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a shred of evidence that this is notable and nor is it encyclopaedic. A momentary fad unsupported by any reliable sources. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 19:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Meme's being notable. C'mon. Ajf773 (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As much as I love me some memes, they're not notable enough to have their own individual wikipedia pages. JubJub343434 4:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable and note to deleting admin: please delete redirect Despacito 2 also. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No lasting impact as a meme; looks more like one of those run of the mill "dank" memes, I'm afraid. Unless the Despacito fad reaches the same legacy as Shrek, I'd say we should delete it for now. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've seen the "Despacito 2" video on YouTube, and I'd say it easily fails WP:WEBCRIT. Also, it looks like this article is describing Despacito memes in general despite being named for one specific Despacito meme. I'd say Despacito's usage in memes deserves a mention on the main Despacito page, but not its own article. Aspening (talk) 01:44, 23 September 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 Deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You Give Love a Bad Name (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This is a WP:TWODABS situation. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the hatnotes both articles have is sufficient. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:03, 17 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al Haybah[edit]

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

Unsourced. Fails WP:V and WP:GEOLAND. Pin points to unsettled mountain area of Musandam, Oman. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator JarrahTree 04:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, uncited, inaccurate nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 17 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adgat[edit]

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

Unsourced. Fails WP:V and WP:GEOLAND. Pin points to coastal area of Al Aqha. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 04:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 04:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 04:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced —AE (talk • contributions) 04:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator JarrahTree 05:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, uncited, inaccurate three-word article. Softlavender (talk) 05:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb: Based only on an OpenStreetMap search, I think this is Al Aqah, or at least supposed to be (it was probably a directory listing from a digitized map from a long time ago). I can't find the Al Aqah/Al Aqha article on OSM, should this be kept per WP:GEOLAND and moved? SportingFlyer talk 05:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently no Al Aqha article, you're right. It's not actually a community or settlement, but a strip of hotel developments. As a new page I fear it wouldn't pass review, so a move would certainly be elegant! Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial photos show what appear to be a small blob of houses on the west side of the highway, so it may actually be a town or village apart from the hotel development strip. What's the preferred name for the page move? SportingFlyer talk 06:25, 17 September 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antigen Shift[edit]

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

Band whose claims to passing WP:NMUSIC are not reliably sourced. As always, it's not the claim to passing NMUSIC that gets a band in the door, but the depth of reliable source coverage in media that can be shown to properly verify that the claim to passing NMUSIC is actually true -- but there's not a single reference being cited here at all except their discogs.com entry (which is not a notability-supporting source), and I can't find anything better. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: An anonymous IP attempted to salvage this by adding new references, though they failed at adding useful ones that demonstrated the notability of this band: most of the new references are blogs, not reliable sources, and the only two that do count as reliable sources at all are both verifying stray facts about a different band this band once performed with, while completely failing to even namecheck this band's existence at all in the process. That's not how sourcing a band as notable works. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article doesn't establish notability and I can't find anything of significance on Google. Subject is clearly not notable.Tuzapicabit (talk) 07:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm weighing in after three re-listings and still no decision. Bottom line, no significant reliable sources, per nomination. Sources are small time and blogs. Further Googling turns up nothing. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:12, 17 September 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leadfeeder[edit]

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

Company has a lot of mentions in various places, including some RS, but it's all ROUTINE sort of coverage. Lacks multiple independent reliable secondary sources covering it in significance as per NCORP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not notable. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG as there are over 3000 g news search results, as well as some g scholar and highbeam results. Needs to be cut down to remove some promo but its notable. - Editor General of Wiki (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 3000 g news hits is not a reason. For the others, please post links to articles/references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability (see WP:NCORP). HighKing⁺⁺ 13:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; the sourcing is routine and / or WP:SPIP. Just a company going about its business & corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - borderline G11, definitley a violation of WP:PROMO. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are some good in-depth references out there; however, they are all written by contributors and not staff writers which leaves them unreliable for establishing notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:02, 18 September 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. Soft deleted per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kay 9ice[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. This musician seems to be the only client of the label. The awards seem non-notable. The BBC mention is trivial. B (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 01:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:17, 23 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquín Moya-Angeler Sánchez[edit]

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

I don't believe the subject is notable under WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:NPOL.

Of the sources listed on the page for him:

"Sobresaliente 'cum laude' para Joaquín Moya-Angeler por su tesis doctoral en Economía (Outstanding' cum laude 'for Joaquín Moya-Angeler for his PhD in Economics.)" (in Spanish). 2011.: Routine local announcement that he wrote a doctoral thesis
"Fundación Moya Angeler. B.O.E (Moya Angeler Foundation. B.O.E)" (in Spanish). 1995.: Primary source that records his charity is indeed a charity
"Investigación. Universidad de Murcia. Coie (Research. Universidad de Murcia. Coie)".: Current & archive versions give error message, not enough context to know what it is
"Cátedra de la Hacienda Territorial y del Observatorio de la Hacienda Territorial (Territorial Department of the Treasury and Finance Territorial Observatory)" (in Spanish).: Current version 404, no archive
"B.O.E. Orden de 29 de octubre de 2008 por la que se nombra a D. Joaquín Moya-Angeler Sánchez como miembro del Consejo Social de la Universidad de Murcia (BOE Order of October 29, 2008 by appointing Angeler Joaquín Moya-Sánchez as a member of the Board of the University of Murcia)" (in Spanish).: Primary source that records his appointment to the university board
"Convenios de colaboración entre la Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia, a través del Servicio Regional de Empleo y Formación con la Universidad de Murcia para facilitar las prácticas de alumnos de últimos cursos de enseñanzas universitarias en empresas (collaboration agreements between the Autonomous Community of the Region of Murcia, through the Regional Employment and Training with the University of Murcia practices to facilitate senior students of university education in business)" (in Spanish).: Doesn't have his name anywhere in it
"Centro de Orientación e Información de Empleo (Guidance and Information Centre for Employment)" (in Spanish).: Guidance center for employment main site, not about him
"Corporación Municipal. Competencias como Primer Teniente de Alcalde y Delegado de Relaciones Institucionales (Competencies as Deputy Mayor and Minister of Institutional Relations)" (in Spanish).: Duplicate: same site as above with different title
"Crisis económica y entidades financieras. (Economic crisis and financial institutions)" (in Spanish).: Listing of books that doesn't mention any books he's written
"Coste para la Administración Pública de las Obligaciones tributarias (Cost to the Public of tax obligations)" (in Spanish).: Business listing of book he wrote
"Publicaciones de Joaquín Moya-Angeler Sánchez recogidos en el periodo 1989 - 2002 en la plataforma de servicios documentales Dialnet (Publications of Joaquín Moya-Sánchez Angeler collected in the period 1989 - 2002 in the service platform of Dialnet documentaries)" (in Spanish).: Just a bibliography, see bottom of page

Not enough here for an article. His es.wiki article is the same as this one, with the same references - nothing new to use. Usual caveat that I don't speak Spanish or Basque. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's a puff piece as written. I would have rejected it in draftspace for a lack of inline citations, but that's another story - he does seem to be covered in several news articles, unfavorably here: [24] and more favorably: [25]. I don't think he quite passes WP:AUTHOR (where are the reviews?) or WP:NPOL (just a regional post) but there's some other articles out there which may make this WP:PROMO failure notable. SportingFlyer talk 06:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 01:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per my comment above. SportingFlyer talk 06:22, 21 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Media Company[edit]

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

Non-notable media company, article is currently WP:NOCONTEXT. Apparently related Metro Now which already has sufficient details for the company. Should be deleted per WP:GNG AND WP:NCORP or be merged to (if necessary) to Metro Now. Gotitbro (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 00:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages. I can't find a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. There's not even enough to merge with another article. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:18, 17 September 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. (non-admin closure) Kpg jhp jm 01:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National School of Glass[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and seems to be promotional. Does not cite any sources, and relies on non-third party external links. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This school is of central and national importance to Swedish glassblowing. Rewriting promotional articles is better than deleting them. I've done so. WP:NACADEMIC is about persons; this is a school. I've also added basic sourcing. /Julle (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs a re-write not deletion. Is an important school nationally.BabbaQ (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article clearly shows notability for the school. Thanks, Julle, for the sources and other improvements. --bonadea contributions talk 16:54, 19 September 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. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milwaukee Mandolin Orchestra[edit]

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

I can't find any indication that this group meets WP:NMUSIC, under either of its names, "Milwaukee Mandolin Orchestra" (MMO) and "Bonne Amie Musical Circle" (BAMC). I know they're quite an old group (going back to 1900), but I did a very thorough check for sources in the historical databases that are available to me, and couldn't find anything substantial.

There were no in-depth sources on Google News or Google Books. I checked all 92 hits for MMO on Newspapers.com and they were all trivial mentions such as "so-and-so, who played with MMO for years" or "the MMO will appear at such-and-such an event" - even going back to their inception in the 1900s. The two Newspapers.com hits for BAMC were trivial also. There were seven hits on Highbeam for MMO and all were trivial. There were no Highbeam hits for BAMC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 00:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I appreciate the deletion nominator's reporting on their efforts to find substantial sources, but still, surely the group, formed in 1900, has significant coverage offline or not easily accessible. Notability is not temporary; offline sources are fine; it is highly reasonable to expect sourcing exists. It could be tagged for more sourcing, but wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. The article includes strong claim of significance: "They are the oldest ensemble of their kind in the United States." There is nothing promotional or commercial or directory-like or otherwise bad about the article. --Doncram (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, per WP:NEXIST: "once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." We cannot simply assume that there must be sources, just because it is old. We don't have to be able to access them fully, or hold them in our hands, but we have to have reasonable indication that they actually exist, which at this stage, we don't.

Just to show I really have exhausted all possible avenues: in response to your comment, I went out and checked the Google.newspapers archive of the Milwaukee Journal and Milwaukee Sentinel, both of which had nothing. I also checked Newspaperarchive.com (link goes to my search setup), and every single one of the 70 hits generated there was an advertisement for a performance, rather than any kind of substantial discussion or profile about the band.

The article may not be bad or promotional, but we are built to summarize and reflect reliable sources, and if we have nothing to summarize, we can hardly maintain an article per WP:V. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a lot, to be sure, but these may or may not be enough depending on interpretation of SIGCOV:

Mandolin Orchestra set to celebrate concert centennial. Ruppa, Paul. Milwaukee Sentinel; 19 Apr 1990 (552 words)
Link to past provided by Mandolin Orchestra. Joslyn, Jay. Milwaukee Sentinel; 11 June 1990: 1-6. (257 words)
MILWAUKEE MANDOLIN ORCHESTRA THRIVING IN ITS 100TH YEAR. Michael Parrish. Chicago Tribune; 02 Feb 2001: 7.28. (407 words)
MANDOLINS MAKE A COMEBACK, BUT THERE'S STILL REASON TO FRET. Adam Bernstein. Chicago Tribune; 22 Jan 1999: 1. (1485 words, only a few hundred might be considered directly related to the subject) Bakazaka (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bakazaka, thank you for sharing those results. I haven't seen them myself, but I assume that either of the two Chicago Tribune constitutes significant coverage that should meet the standard. This is specific credible evidence that sourcing exists, even if it has not actually been incorporated into the article, which should suffice per AFD guidelines. --Doncram (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, the article has now been updated with the sourcing I could find. It's still quite stubby, but at least it's sourced. The mentions of the group in the second Tribune article in the list above were not, in my opinion, enough to count. The first Milwaukee Sentinel article I listed above is mostly about the broader history of mandolin groups, with little content specific to this group, and it's by someone affiliated with the group (Ruppa, who did his M.Mus. thesis on local music groups, then apparently became the MMO's director) so I left it out. The other two seem fine. I also added some academic references, one of which is by the same Ruppa person, and the other of which only mentions MMO briefly but confirms some basic facts. Bakazaka (talk) 04:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for doing all that! From what you say I think that Ruppa's thesis and other writings would be very relevant to use in developing the article, too. Although notability sticklers might argue that Ruppa is not independent so those writings don't contribute much or at all towards estabilishing notability. IMO a non-independent source can contribute to notability somewhat. And, this person is apparently an expert on the narrow topic, an authority, and we can use experts. And non-independent stuff certainly can help develop out the article, which, indirectly supports the validity of having a Wikipedia article, i.e. does go to notability, IMHO. So perhaps you could add more, perhaps after this AFD is settled. Thanks so much for you additions! --Doncram (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:BAND#1 as "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." Based on the source descriptions of pre-1990 activity for this group as being mostly small and private, there probably isn't much available press coverage from the first ninety years of their existence. But since 1990 or so they have been covered multiple times in multiple RS outlets by multiple writers over several years, which seems to meet the requirements of WP:BAND#1. Bakazaka (talk) 04:49, 20 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Rykova[edit]

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

fails WP:COMPOSER look like this is a case of WP:TOOSOON the sources are too weak. A couple of interviews a coiple of shorlisting for prizes she didn't win. The prize she won as a young composer is not enough to pass nor her placing as a finalist in the Kandinsky prize "Young Artist. Project of the Year" these are excluded in #4 of the criteria Dom from Paris (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a number of improvements to the article, adding significant accomplishments. Does this help, Domdeparis? --Hroche83 (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 00:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:COMPOSER, possibly WP:TOOSOON, she's young and actively self-promotes on social media (something creative professionals pretty much have to do,) but searches turn up social media, not WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing reliable independent WP:SECONDARY sources that talk about her. Most of the refs are just advertisements for performances and other stuff that is more WP:PROMO and WP:USERG. I welcome the creator to identify refs that are clearly independent and secondary that are not of this nature. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:50, 24 September 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. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Substantive title[edit]

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

No reliable sources in the article, nor could I find any. Another editor reasonably knowledgeable about these sorts of things has no idea what this is. The definition of "substantive title" does not satisfy WP:V (and is counter-intuitive to me: why would a substantive title be ceremonial?). Srnec (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article as I found it. The present text is a result of a revert back to August 2017. Srnec (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The concerns cited here for deletion are better grounds for editing than elimination. For instance, a "substantive title" is described in the article as "ceremonial" (in contrast to a "ruling" title, e.g., emperor, king), but perhaps "non-reigning" would be a clearer adjective (Prince of Orange" and Duke of Brabant were once the official titles of Continental rulers, yet are now the legal but "ceremonial" titles of certain kings' heirs apparent). Still, "substantive title" belongs to the same category as courtesy title, hereditary title, victory title, etc, as subsets of Titles that distinguish one type of title from another, historically or currently, used by royalty and aristocracy. Last February I began a still needed editing process by restoring to the article English usage from the way an editor found the term used in Flemish for Belgian titleholders. Article serves the useful purpose of clarifying that substantive titles are borne by one person at a time (e.g. "Charles, Prince of Wales", "The Grand Duke of Finland", the Duke of Kent), and thus carry both different meaning and rules than non-substantive titles, which are also legal but borne by all members of a certain class ("Prince Harry of Wales", "Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia", Prince Michael of Kent). Also, article's footnoted. FactStraight (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite a reliable source for the current usage? Srnec (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 00:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:V. For current usage, "Traditionally the male members of the royal family are appointed a substantive title by the sovereign on their wedding day." and "The Queen’s will is considered final as is, the titles are considered substantive from the moment The Queen orders." In connection to the UK Royal family. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not reliable sources. How do you know they didn't derive that meaning from Wikipedia? Srnec (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for current usage. The topic is widely covered in British government sources published before Wikipedia was founded. For example [26] [27] in connection to the Earl of Durham. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I think the nom has just not understood what the article is about. The British part of the article is accurate. I expect that sources can be found such as Burke's or Debret's peerages. The converse of substantive is courtesy, which never conferred any rights (save exceptionally). I am less familiar with German usage, but think that is also correct. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 23 September 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.