Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 24: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:15, 24 May 2017

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 May	25 May >

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emagination Computer Camps

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

Non-notable summary camp provider. Google News returns mainly press releases or recycled press releases. Article is written in a promotional style and fails the standards of WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads like an advertisement, doesn't look particularly notable, and all the references are commercial links.PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Mena

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

Non notable singer. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Awards are not major. Bombardment of sources lacks any good ones. A mix of press releases, primary and puff. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The award listed are of highly promotional and dubious value, being conferred by promotional organizations. The cited sources are nearly all event listing so or promotional. There is no other indication of notability under WP:NMUSIC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Even if he were notable, which I doubt, this page is so poorly written that it needs a fresh start. Bearian (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bedowyn

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

No evidence of any notability. Not a single independent reference produced. Searches yield nothing of worth other than social media and self promotion and directory listing, Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - There are sources. They range from the niche, to the niche and probably unreliable, completely indeterminate reliability, the decidedly local, and whatever this is. But I'm not really seeing much that manages to be in depth, reliable, and broad in scope all at the same time. Probably still slightly too soon. No prejudice against recreation if the sources improve over the next year or so. TimothyJosephWood 13:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, promotional, not encyclopedic. --Lockley (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there is some coverage, but I'm still not certain how much that counts here. Bearian (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist - consensus still unclear
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a nn band. Having a song included in a video game is hardly a claim to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Great Father. While the consensus is split, it is split between delete and redirect. Only one of the delete arguments speaks of not redirecting, while the other two mention that he might be known (not notable) for the film. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haneef Adeni

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

Directing one movie is not enough to establish any notability. All the sources provided just mention the person's name while talking about the movie. Notability is not inherited and also fails WP:GNG. Jupitus Smart 18:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 19:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 19:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 19:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - actually, directing one notable movie is grounds for notability per WP:CREATIVE, and however bad it may be, "The Great Father" is a notable movie with reviews in the Times of India, The Indian Express, etc. WP:NOTINHERITED has nothing to do with it. Newimpartial (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omar Lulu have reached the consensus that directing one movie, is not enough to satisfy WP:DIRECTOR. Movies getting reviews in notable publication does not imply that the director is notable in his own regard, and therefore WP:NOTINHERITED is applicable. There is anyway no indepth coverage of the person for WP:GNG, and the only thing mentioned in the article apart from the fact that he has directed the said movie is that he was born in Thrissur, which incidentally is unreferenced. At best the article can be redirected to the only movie he has directed as a case of WP:TOOSOON. Jupitus Smart 04:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misreading of WP:DIRECTOR, which clearly states (in bullet 3) that one well-known work automatically makes its creator WP:Notable, where secondary literature exists for the work. WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply from a work to its creator, only from creators to their works. As far as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omar Lulu, that doesn't trump WP:DIRECTOR Newimpartial (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you believe run of the mill coverage is enough to pass WP:GNG, then I cannot help it. WP:NOTINHERITED applies because all the references mentioned are about the movie, and not about the director. Creator is a relative term and the movie is not the exclusive work of the said person, but of a collective of artists. All the coverage for the movie stems from the fact that the movie had an impressive star cast, and not because the said person directed it, and that is the reason why WP:NOTINHERITED is applicable. A myopic reading of WP:DIRECTOR without looking at the larger perspective of whether the individual himself is independently notable and satisfied WP:GNG, was not done in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omar Lulu and that is why I mentioned it. Jupitus Smart 06:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the director has not "created or played a major role in co-creating" the film? Because that is what WP:CREATIVE requires, nothing more, and no personal notability is required outside of the work. Newimpartial (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harping the same point again and again does not add anything to the discussion. At the very beginning of the page where WP:CREATIVE appears,the Basic Criteria for notability, including indepth coverage and the like, are mentioned as compulsory requirements. It is also mentioned that meeting one or more criteria does not guarantee that a subject should be included. I would rather disengage from such a meaningless conversation, if you cannot understand that. Jupitus Smart 06:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mistaken about the structure of that page. WP:BASIC notability ensures that the subject is notable (except for certain exclusions). The specific criteria, such as WP:CREATIVE, do not guarantee but allow notability even if WP:BASIC is not met. Newimpartial (talk) 06:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to reiterate anything and am disengaging per my word. Have a good day. Jupitus Smart 06:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete name is best presented in the film's page, not as a stand alone article, yet. Legacypac (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect known only for the film so redirect to The Great Father. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Literally the only information (other than birthplace) in this so-called biography is that this guy directed one film. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:BIO1E. no need for redirect. Coverage is scanty. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, to the one single thing he is known for. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Oppenheim

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

This attorney does not appear to meet notability requirements. The closest thing to claims of notability are that he was "part of the team that took the MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. case to the Supreme Court" and was involved in Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum.

A look at the Supreme Court opinion in the Grokster case shows that he was not the lead attorney; the lead attorney was Donald B. Verrilli. Oppenheim was just one of the team of eighteen lawyers who contributed to the brief.

A look at the First Circuit opinion in the Tenenbaum case shows that he wasn't lead counsel in that case, either; that was Paul D. Clement. Again, Oppenheim was one of six lawyers on the brief. The Tenenbaum could be a reference to the district court portion of the case, rather than the appeal, which is much less notable, at least from a legal point of view (generally, district courts don't set precedents, especially where the court's finding is appealed, as here; opinions in appeals do), but if so, that's unsourced and difficult to verify, and in any event doesn't amount to notability anyway. (The text of the article suggests he may have had more involvement at the district court proceeding; but somewhat confusingly, the link is to the article on the appeal rather than to the article on the district court proceeding.)

The article has no references, as such. It does have two external links, though: Copyright Conundrum and [1]. If considered references, these might save this from WP:BLPPROD; but both are dead links. TJRC (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per breath-takingly lengthy nom.Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the nom pretty much covered all the bases.PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mounted Battle Command On The Move

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

Article is purely definitional in nature, has no sources, and I can find no secondary sources. It had a contested speedy deletion in the past. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (preferably); if it morphed into some other acronym, then redirect. This reads like an abandoned draft in article space.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no other reason to keep. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not shown to be notable and not sourced. Kierzek (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without sources or context it's hard to even begin to make sense of this. --Lockley (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was interested in what this is about... but no sources. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF. Bearian (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 13:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie White

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

As WP:BIO1E. Won Survivor in 2009, and has had no public presence afterwards. Currently, all Survivor winners have pages; there is a case that receiving 1 million dollars for starring on a 16-episode TV series meets WP:ENT.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- largely unsourced original research and no encyclopedically relevant prose. Not a public figure. I consider reality TV winners to be akin to beauty pageant winners; they need to have done something notable outside of winning the competition for their articles to be kept. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:BIO1E Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notable for one single event, so no justification for this article. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although there might seem to be a rough consensus to delete based on the comments above, I am relisting in hopes of achieving wider participation in light of the previous aparently robust consensus that Survivor winners (as opposed to run-of-the-mill contestants) are notable. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She would be the only Survivor winner to not have a wikipedia article, every winner has a wikipedia article. But I agree she should do more with her life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MalcolmFangirl482123491028490 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eluchil404 (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. This appears to be a good example of the risks involved in reaching a consensus that a particular class of articles are inherently notable. Such shorthand policy formulations are generally based on the argument that "anything/ anyone of this type must have been discussed in reliable independent sources that demonstrate notability". In this case the answer is clearly not. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Harris (Rapper)

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

I wasn't able to find any notable third party sources mentioning this rapper using Google News and the article is only using primary sources. Doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC either and is very WP:PROMO.-- Dane ^talk 21:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above, there are no credible third party sources to back up facts and verify information. Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references provided are third-party and I can't find much else. It doesn't help that the article is quite spammish. Pichpich (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. czar 18:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Underwood

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

A collection of minor credentials; played basketball at the University of Maine, won Miss Maine USA, appeared on Survivor. None of them are sufficient for notability individually. I don't see how the combination makes her a public figure. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are of people whose only claims for notability are winning a state-level beauty pageant and appearing on Survivor:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ashley Underwood. I see multiple non-trivial sources covering her in-depth.--TM 23:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the pageant they won where you find their name on a list. This is the standard way we usually handle these very minor celebs. Complies with WP:NOPAGE. As is, she fails WP:ACTOR and WP:MODEL which covers these cases. Legacypac (talk) 08:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all - clearly they don't meet WP:GNG, nor as Legacypac points out, do they meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NMODEL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe these are redirect candidates, as there's no way to tell whether to redirect to the beauty pageant or the Survivor season. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

then it needs to be delete because two minor entertainment gigs does not = meeting WP:NMODEL/WP:NACTOR Legacypac (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all -- insignificant achievements in other areas to warrant stand-alone articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all: The subjects are just not notable. Ashley Underwood was a top ten all time scorer for the Black Bears, "won" Miss Maine USA 2009, and was a participant on the Survivor. Any obvious redirect would be to Miss Maine USA. Angelia Layton was a participant on Survivor and won Miss Utah USA 2014. Redirect to that article. Janu Tornell participated on Survivor and "won" Miss Nevada USA 1989. Redirect to that article. Otr500 (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all: to pages suggested above. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khmerload

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

related page: In Vichet

Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Only real claim of notability is its funding which does not raise it to a notable level in either criteria. The last reference does highlight some data that could link to notability. Page has other issues but they are mostly cleanup items. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and GNG. I removed some unnecessary detail and puffery. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Border Men

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

Non-notable play that will only be first staged next saturday. Accordingly, there is very little (if any) significant coverage of the play in reliable third-party sources. Pichpich (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, this is WP:TOOSOON. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with swiftness and contempt. Is this a server for people's resumes now is it? Jacx2 (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is definitely too soon if the play hasn't even premièred yet! I think the article may be salvageable and will return in a few months, when reviews have surfaced and it's nominated for awards, though. ↅ𝜞 _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 16:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ben—Salvidrim! ✉ 21:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maxford Nelsen

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

Despite the author's claim that the WSJ articles are sufficient for notability, this entry fails the basic notability standards:

1. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

2. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

Of the citations in the entry, only two were not written by Nelson himself. And in each of those, he is briefly quoted. There is literally no coverage of Nelson as a notable person.

Writing editorials for your employer and pitching them for publication doesn't make you a subject worthy of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleverhawk (talk • contribs) 16:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep In response to the suggestion of no notablity, I have added four original works of research/analysis.

In response to the suggestion that too few examples of coverage, I have added around 25 additional citations of the work and additional commentaries of related events in Washington and around the nation in an attempt to make more clear the breadth of the notability. These range from academic journals, professional association publications, ideological publications, to newspapers.

Few in the nation cover these topics with academic integrity (see the first four original research pieces).CalmGromit (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)CalmGromit (I'm not Maxford, but I do confess to being relatively new to this, so your patience is appreciated)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we are not a web host nor a resume service. The wall of citations in the article are for stories that he's written, not about the subject, thus failing WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. We are a not for profit, which would be put into jeopardy if we provided advertising for profit. Bearian (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Stories he's written" claim is simply not true. Twenty five of the items are written about his research and analysis. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. National Federation of Independent Business. New York Times. Inlander. Reason Magazine and many other news and analysis outlets around the country find it relevant enough to report or cite it. I can't even fathom how wikipedia presenting social science research somehow violates nonprofit status. CalmGromit (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:ADVOCACY likely written by someone close to the subject; note the use of the first name here: "Max's work has been published in local newspapers around the country...". Plus, writing articles is hardly a claim to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SOAPBOX issues aside, notability guidelines, both th subject-specific and the general ones, ask for significant coverage about the article subject. There is, at best, evidence for significant coverage of labor market issues by the article subject, which is another thing entirely. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as the keep arguments failed to establish notability via multiple reliable sources. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katfyr

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

I originally tagged the page for speedy deletion but that tag was removed. Now taking it to AfD because the subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Meatsgains (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Contesting the Proposed Deletion:

Please note that I have addressed the concerns by Meatsgain about not having many reliable sources. Initially, the article had only 4 cited source at the time that it was moved into this board (for deletion within 1 week), and as a response I have added 5 new sources including 3 from the truly notable sites beatport.com and anime-expo.org, and this has been done to meet WP:MUSICBIO #1. Note that this artist falls within a specialized market and subculture, and therefore some of the sites offering reviews are also specialized and not well known. The inclusion of the well known music distributor "Beatport" and the anime/cultural exposition organization "Anime-Expo", and offering a total of 9 unbiased references should provide enough evidence about the validity of this artist. Nevertheless, thank you for allowing this improvement. pbigio (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, to meet WP:MUSICBIO #5, I have included notable mention of Katfyr's multiple releases with major music labels in the EDM industry including Armada Music, UKF Music, Hypnotic Records, and FiXT_Music. I will continue working on this page during the weekend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by pbigio (talk • contribs) 220:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Further additions" - Contesting the Proposed Deletion: Please note that I have added more notability items, including that the artist has made multiple releases, over 18 singles or EPs, via the notable electronic music distribution site Beatport. I have also added information about the artists' nationality, instruments used, and other biographical facts.pbigio (talk) 3:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

"Addressing addition of more reliable sources for notability and more attributes of notability": At this point I clarify that for Katfyr notability, as per WP:MUSICBIO, has been addressed by including mention notable work along with reliable sources that have been added (including beatport.com, armadamusic.com, ukf.com, and the website and youtube page for the company PreSonus Studio One. Examples of notable work added include his work with award winning Emma Hewitt and then releasing the associated remixes through Armada Music. The reliable source for this is the links to the Beatport music distribution website. This aspect of notability occurs twice, first with Emma Hewitt's Foolish Boy and then with the song "Rewind." Another example of notable work include the fact that Katfyr was able to reach position number 1 in the Beatport Dubstep Charts in May 2014 with his original song "Lose Control", which meets WP:MUSICBIO #7. For this point, I have also included more reliable sources have been added since the first one was simply a website that tracks Beatport charts, in addition mention has been added to the website for the company that makes PreSonus Studio One which includes many links to videos and other articles which also mention the fact that Katfyr did indeed reach position number 1 on the dubstep charts in Beatport. Another example of notability, which meets WP:MUSICBIO #10 for inclusion in a notable compilation, I have added the work Katfyr did in two music compilations by World-Touring band Celldweller, and released through the well known record label FiXT_Music. Lastly, there has been the addition of a full discography which shows at least 18 different releases that are present on the Beatport.com website. pbigio (talk) 8:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am sorry because I have invested interest in this article and done some cleanup editing. I have searched online to find better mainstream sources to no avail. I even located Metal Life Magazine because the only source provided (as for others) for the recent addition of a link with Katfyr to 'Bobbie and Neko Heavygrinder' is a YouTube video. I have updated the source to the interview page in the mazgazine in August 2015, read the print article and listened to the associated youtube video (twice). This resulted in my placing a 'failed verification' tag on the article. Entertaining about the wasp but not even the print article provides a hint about Katfyr or in the almost nine minutes of Youtube. Further Beatport is just an online music store, which of course sells music online. It is in their self-interest to promote anyone they are selling, including naming an artist as in 'position number 1' for their sales. Multiple citations are for Beatport. PreSonus Studio One, our article with its own problems, does not mention Katfyr at all. Lastly, none of the Discography is sourced and I am doing no further investigation. Thanks, Fylbecatulous talk 14:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Addressing the few issues raised above by user "Fylbecatuloss": In this case the user is stating that she/he has invested interest in this article but it is unlikely the interest is electronic dance music due to the user's lack of understanding of the high relevance of the Beatport charts, or the validity of Beatport as a reference. Please note that I simply use Beatport as a reference to show a valid link to the record labels, as this proves that it is a fact that the artist complies with notability requirement WP:MUSICBIO #7 and WP:MUSICBIO #10. Furthermore, all record labels listed, to meet requirement WP:MUSICBIO #5 do not have to necessarily be linked to the Beatport website, and I could simply add direct links to the label website. In addition, at this point, the user Fylbecatulos may be simply upset about the first interview that I added to show that Katfyr is now working with Heavygrinder, because the interview was not clear enough. However I have corrected and added a more detailed interview. In either case, this small section which is upsetting this user, can simply be edited out and the user should not have added these points as reasons for deleting the entire article, or shine light on the other sources. At this point, I'm afraid that this user will be creating further bias by going after the other points that I have clearly addressed here. For this reason, I want it to be noted that I consider this user's post on this page to be completely off topic and could have been addressed as a correction to the article. I believe marking the article for deletion was an initially hostile opinion by one user and this is now simply spreading to create negative opinions on other users. I request for this process to be completed now as my points have been raised and I have addressed WP:MUSICBIO #1, #5, #7 and #10 and the only user interested in this article to be deleted has only addressed WP:MUSICBIO #1. Furthermore, in over 4 days no one else has taken the time to validly contest the notability points I have addressed. I consider this process starting to be unfair. I have been a registered user of Wikipedia for over 10 years and the posts I have added have always been improved by other users, rather than contested and put to shame, and this is the experience that I believe was the original idea for users within Wikipedia, to help build a productive community, not to attack other people's efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.38.98 (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC) Adding signature for the post above: pbigio (talk) 9:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment further: Ignoring the bad faith assumptions written about me with grace and peace, I want to make one further comment. A major problem with the section about Neko and the infobox and in the article itself is: the only name used for the artist and the title is "Katfyr'. The article and video I tagged as failed verification certainly names 'Neko' but nowhere do they say this is an alias for Katfyr. Further confusing is the birth name JayJay. So we have all these names and aliases lacking proof that they are indeed one and the same artist. This is one reason reliable sourcing is so important in order for an article to be accepted that is a Biography of a living person. Deciding something is true just because you assure us that it is without WP:Reliable Sources is WP:Original Research. I have a request on my talk page now from a professional writer that can't get his Biographical article published because of the pushback over sources. It is nothing personal. Thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 23:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Addressing the new issues raised above by user "Fylbecatuloss": As expected the conversation here goes on with the initial unfair base and negative connotation, adding additional critics to the article itself as opposed to helping improve the article which is the way Wikipedia was originally designed to be used. Nevertheless, I have decided to delete the section that is being contested by this user along with any references to Heavygrinder as a group. I'm doing this despite knowing that the user does not understand the market of independent electronic music artists and merely stating the sources are not reliable without establish a solid frame of reference, proof or substance to this or any other claim.Pbigio (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Pbigio, let's remain civil here. The problem I see with the page, outside of what Fylbecatulous noted, is that while the page appears to have more than enough references to verify the page's content, most are unreliable. Of the page's 38 references, only 3 are somewhat reliable and detail Katfyr. The rest are either unreliable, blogs, mention the subject in passing, or do not cover the subject at all. The sources that are reliable include:

The 3 sources listed above however, is not enough to establish notability. Meatsgains (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Addressing the comment raised by user Meatsgains": Just for the record, user Meatsgains had originally marked the page for speedy deletion and mentioned that the article contained unreliable sources. At that time one of the sources was in fact soundista.com and the user is now mentioning this as a reliable source, thus further proving either lack of true interest or knowledge of the subject at hand. Furthermore, the user is claiming that only 3 of the references in this article are reliable, when I have addressed the reliability issue multiple times on this deletion board, including mentioning that Beatport, along with any Record Label website listed on my references are indeed reliable and show proof of the work. These sources are reliable and show that the artist has released records in highly notable record labels, multiple times, and collaborated with artists such as Emma Hewitt, Celldweller and Klaypex. I must reassure you, that I have gone beyond what's typically required from the Wikipedia community of users, and addressed multiple notability items as per WP:MUSICBIO.Pbigio (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You want to get into details, I can get into details too. First, when I originally tagged the page for speedy deletion, there was one reliable source, ONE. Did you read what the speedy delete tag said? You're a new editor so my guess is no. A7 notes, "an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject."(bold emphasis by me) The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. And second, Beatport does not cover the subject what so ever. All Beatport can be used for is playing Katfy's music. I suggest you read through WP:RS before trying to "teach" me what is and is not reliable. Meatsgains (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NMUSIC; having a song at the top of a weekly genre-specific music chart probably meets "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style", Power~enwiki (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also agree with the Keep decision by user Power~enwiki and adds an additional notability point. I must also mention it is easy for some users to focus too much on why they want to delete the article without really digging in or having the required understanding of the subject as pertaining to sub-culture music. In over a week of discussion the comments added for deletion fail to directly address the multiple points added for notability, and at the same time show lack of understanding of the sources added or why those were added for reference. The best example is the way the website Beatport is mentioned and disregarded as "unreliable". Statement such as “All Beatport can be used for is playing music,” further proves my point. I will make no further clarifications of what Beatport is, or how it is reliable and relevant in this case, because I have been clear enough in my explanations above and now the burden of proof falls on anyone arguing against the use of Beatport as directly used to sustain one of my multiple points addressing WP:MUSICBIO. In summary, multiple notability points, in addition to the one addressed by the addition of Beatport links, have been addressed by me and also by Power~enwiki already. In summary, the article is now much improved version from the original, and the comments added on this board give detail on how the respective notability point were addressed by following advice of other Wikipedia users who also helped improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbigio (talk • contribs) 13:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG, and they don't meet WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we have tended to delete DJs who get half the media coverage he has. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The guidelines for Articles for Deletion make it clear that people arguing for deletion should also should make solid points. So far, in over 2 weeks we are getting no solid points against multiple points made for WP:BIO (Keep). It is likely that no one can truly make a true solid argument as to why this article must be deleted, or if so, at least they are totally failing to make the point on this board. Furthermore, the latest user are simply making blanket statements and in one case showing clear bias against what they consider "DJs". I have no further comments at this point, but it would be appropriate for admins to be moderated or otherwise counseled when clearly showing bias against a specific group.Pbigio (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Zero albums on any labels. A weekly genre chart does not equal most prominent representatives and we don't even have a weekly chart, beatport charts aren't like that. Nothing in WP:MUSIC is satisfied. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once again, another delete post is made making claim against this article for the 3rd week now without reading my previous posts. The user appears to state that that work performed with Klayton, Celldweller, and multiple releases through FiXT_Music, Armada Music and UKF are not notable. And then the user proceeds to vaguely repeat arguments already made other users and addressed by me in high detail 3 weeks ago. Yet again, it must be clarified that Katfyr is a sub-genre artist and the users here are simply holding him to the standards of mainstream music (full albums), not even mainstream EDM where it is common for artists to release notable work without having to release full albums (as it was in the late 90's).Pbigio (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-genre artist are held to the same standards as mainstream artists. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The standards you are personally setting here perhaps, because you are refering to albums where this artist fulfills notability by recordings, which include singles as it is common for artists in the Dubstep and other EDM sub-genres. In your statement basically you are discounting his work based on your experience of what is considered notable for mainstream music, but WP:MUSICBIO allows for recordings and singles to be counted. Pbigio (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per delete rationales above, thanks to @Fylbecatulous: and others for doing the heavy lifting.Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To address the last comment, I must repeat there has been no heavy lifting as I have addressed WP:MUSICBIO 1, 5, 7 and 10 and users are basically commenting without going deep into the discussion. Furthermore, the issue described by Fylbecatulous was addressed. Please make sure to read the responses before adding a comment here as if this was a voting contest.

Comment on last comment: Pbigio Regarding the resolved issue, I cannot discern how that is so: I still have three inline issue tags on the article in the last paragraph you amended. Your resolution just makes the problem worse and in any other article, that entire paragraph would be deleted as questionable speculation and unsupported conclusions. (The sources do not support it and your comments in that paragraph actually agree with that.) I have left it because it helps demonstrate the weakness of the foundation of this article. Fylbecatulous talk 19:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tip Donaldson

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

Not yet notable per WP:NMODEL, WP:NACTOR, WP:NTENNIS, WP:NHOCKEY, or WP:BIO. In short, it's WP:Vanispamcruftisement, with an evident WP:Conflict of interest or WP:Autobiography judging by the amount of unsourced detail about his early life. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by creator. Uncle Roy (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This should have gone through CSD, this reads like a really bad resume. Wikipedia isn't a web hosting service. South Nashua (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did think long and hard about CSD, but the article does make a "credible assertion of notability" with its (unsourced) mentions of film roles and modelling for well-known companies. Since there's nothing about these online, I can only guess that they were minor acting and modelling roles, probably uncredited. And you do have to wade through eight feet of treacle to find those small claims to notability. Uncle Roy (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the attempts weren't credible, but I can understand going through AFD vs CSD. Either way, this subject is nowhere near notable enough to warrant an article. South Nashua (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: So, this individual doesn't have any roles, but the reason he has a Wikipedia article is because he was signed with a talent agency and has interests? DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 19:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His roles are indeed small uncredited roles (acting as well as modeling), however the roles are legitimate and verifiable through the referenced channel on Twitch in the past broadcasts. Also, the article has more than just his interests and the talent agency signing, it also details his successful entertainment career online, which I believe is noteworthy enough by itself for an article. StevieWondersEyes (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)— StevieWondersEyes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The references don't mention the individual and Twitch is not a reliable source. Quick question: are you Tip Donaldson? DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 21:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The individual is of course mentioned in the references (and quite obviously in the content he created himself). May I ask why Twitch is not a reliable source of information on the subject when it is of course related to the content on the site itself? I believe the argument in favor of his successful career still stands. Also please refrain from any accusations of vanity.StevieWondersEyes (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's very common on Wikipedia to check into a potential conflict of interest and/or autobiography, so you're going to have to get used to getting checked for that. For sourcing, you need reliable, 3rd party articles and not Wikia pages, YouTube videos and Twitch videos- utilize articles written about the individual. You should probably read this. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 22:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and I understand why you may think that. However, when debating in an article for deletion, simply accusing one of vanity [to be avoided] as it is not valid reason for deletion. As for sources, the references are the best sources to be found when talking about that very subject. For example when talking about the success of his twitch, of course the best source will be the twitch page itself, etc. and of course any video should be referenced itself as the source and obviously more reliable than any articles written.StevieWondersEyes (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your rationale and I recognize that you have the grasp to be a compatible and reasonable contributor. However, COI is serious and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest explains in full detail why those associated with the subjects should be avoided-- I say this as a person who has to bar himself from editing pages about actors I know. So, I must ask, do you have a relation to Tip Donaldson to declare? DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 23:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No StevieWondersEyes (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then may I ask why you've uploaded this baby photo of him as your own work? Uncle Roy (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly fails notability for WP:NACTOR and WP:Bio. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet NACTOR. roles are not sufficient. Coverage not sufficient in terms of depth to met GNG. The article creator did a fine job with what he had, but subject just isn't notable. (If this is a case of WP:PAID, creator certainly earned his pay. The baby photo was just over the top, though.) It is a bit like Vanity Fair (magazine), isn't it. So, Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement it is.Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia isn't a place to advertise yourself. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 17:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Maden

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

In addition to being a technical WP:NACTOR fail (no main cast roles on a TV series – even "Scream" was just a recurring role), this is also a pretty clear WP:BASIC fail: I sourced this one from scratch myself, but there is no in-depth or "significant coverage" here, only passing mentions. It's possible that this article may exist in a year or two, but right now it seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no major roles. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –XboxGamer22408^talk 18:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage available is trivial. Agree with the assessment that this is potentially WP:TOOSOON. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sole Keep is based on claims that are not supported by citations to reliable sources. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luiza Borac

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

No independent sources attest notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete was tagged for BLPProD, but was sourced to subject's web page, so deProDed. Honestly, we need to tweak BLPProD better, or use ProD more appropraitely. Highly ProDable. Which is to say, probably subject exists as has webpage. Just does not meet the GNG. I suspect, that when one removes a BLPProD, one should replace with ProD unless one has found some inkling of the subject actually being notable. If such inkling is found, would it not be best to add sourcing? Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She placed second in the Gina Bachauer International Piano Competition, which is good enough for me to presume that she is notable. The additional assertions of achievements mean that if they are correct, she is clearly notable within a certain international community. Can someone knowledgeable about piano please de-effuse the text, though? - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Second place, though — if that's all there is to say about her, we may as well limit our mention to the Bachauer article.
- For the rest, I encourage you to review WP:V — the content is utterly unverified, so for our purposes, may as well not exist. One doesn't get to add material to this encyclopedia and simply have it accepted at face value. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –XboxGamer22408^talk 18:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harmony drive

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

Non notable band. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

London's Underground Stations: A Social and Architectural Study

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

Book is not notable. Tentinator 17:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I do see in Google Books that other books reference this one, that is not significant coverage. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is non-notable and very likely self-promotion. --Lockley (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 17:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Make It Sweet!

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

Non-notable album for a non notable band with a now deleted article. Justeditingtoday (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches provide no significant coverage; fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –XboxGamer22408^talk 18:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. gongshow talk 08:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to April 2010 U.S consulate and ANP attack. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Timergarah bombings

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

The event is already covered in the April 2010 U.S consulate and ANP attack article.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mfarazbaig (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect (is there such a thing?) to April 2010 U.S consulate and ANP attack. --Lockley (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After Cunard's rewrites, most delete !voters were convinced to keep the article. So Why 07:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTEX Industries

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

Delete: This article was nominated in the last week or so. The previous nomination was withdrawn by the nominator after a short time. I subsequently examined the article and saw that the sources do not meet the criteria for notability among other problems. I tagged the article (notability being one) but one editor disagreed and removed the tags. After some discussion (on the article Talk page) the editor put some tags back but has not added any additional sources and believes the last AfD passed with WP:SNOW and that the topic is therefore notable. Nevertheless it was agreed to put it back in AfD.

The existing sources in the article are either Press Releases or Primary sources from the Utex website. Despite this being the 2nd AfD in a short period of time, interested editors have not provided any sources that meet the criteria for notability.

This topic fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I had the hubris to think that sourcing a WP:BASIC bio of an American company that's been around since 1940 would be a piece of cake. I started with a Proquest news archive search on the original name ""Universal Packing and Gasket" and got absolutely nothing. My google search= [2] was not much better. So I tried "Utex Industries", but all that I could establish is that the company issues a lot of press releases and but gets only a very occassional routine or trivial mention in news media. ~~So, it exists, but it fails WP:CORPDEPTH.~~E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC) Changing iVote to Keep per new sources found.[reply]

Keep - I'm open to changing my mind but a quick search shows a lot of media coverage that could be used to improve the article. It has near a 100 year history and appears to meet notability criteria without much trouble. Recent advert-wording issues have been solved and now the article just needs expansion. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 10:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jenova20, Can you share some of the substantive, RS coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How's that? Certainly enough out there for good article expansion. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 14:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenova20, you are correct that a source must be reliable, but you don't appear to be critically analysing the articles published by the sources with an eye on WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Being a reliable source isn't enough, on its own, to establish notability. Here are my comments on the sources you've mentioned above.

Yes, a passing mention. Fails point 12 (the last one) of WP:CORPDEPTH.
Yes, seems factual and informative. But, the publication is not national or regional but local (Newcastle in the UK). It also seems to me to fail point 11 of WP:CORPDEPTH ("quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources").
this talks about Moody's and their rating cut. I'm not 100% sure how to think about this one. This is the original announcement from Moody's and it is a routine announcement from Moody's (point 5 or 6 of WP:CORPDEPTH. See here for a list of all announcements from Moody's regarding UTEX Industries. Therefore fails point
Reuters. The article mentions Utex but the content makes it clear that the information is not reliable.
same topic, different source yes, but its a circular argument. This article directly references reuters as the originating source, therefore this source is not considered as a separate source.
this seems decent except its a copy of a company Press Release so fails WP:ORGIND
this fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is only a mention in passing
this court case also fails for the same reason. BTW, if a newspaper has covered the proceedings, then there's a good chance that article would meet the criteria.
acquisition news except fails WP:ORGIND because it is a Press Release from the company and their new landlord
another acquisition Except it is listed in a newsletter called "Sealing Technology" which this website sells. You're just looking at a snippet. The newsletter is not widely distributed and (in my opinion) fails as a reliable secondary source.
another one which is also a regurgitation of a Press Release and therefore fails WP:ORGIND (it even has a link to the original Riverstone press release).
and another which is also regurgitating the earlier Reuters unreliable whisper.
US dept of Labor complaint for violations I believe this one is good and meets the criteria.

I believe there are now two sources (and possibly three - perhaps the reuters published rumour meets the critera .. not convinced though) that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The article should incorporate the details in those sources and reference them. I'd like to wait to see if anyone has any further comments on the source above regarding the US dept of Labor complaint before striking my Delete !vote. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Sources The article is entirely PRIMARY sourced with the lone exception of a 2014 article in Rubber and Plastics News, a publication with which I am unfamiliar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that participants in previous (brief) AfD included IP 81.168.78.73; and SPA User:Cydney456.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- just a product brochure. Such content belongs on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Wikipedia is not a free Company Website hosting service. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - While it does get some passing mentions, not the type of in-depth coverage needed to show it passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to Keep after further research and article re-write by Cunard. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Taken in isolation, the comments in this AfD clearly justify closing this as delete. However, the previous AfD, just a couple of weeks ago, came to a very different conclusion. It's true that some of the arguments in the previous AfD were not well-founded (and/or from IP/SPA editors) but there were also some reasonable arguments for keeping that were put forth. Given that, I think it's worth letting this run for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with reference to the investigation above. Note that the previous AFD only really considered the spammy nature of the article, and did not look in depth at notability as this one has. The spam issue has been addressed well, but I feel that the notability issue has not. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - on cursory investigation, an otherwise undistinguished lower middle market company has managed to become the core of a rather convoluted rollup spearheaded by a succession of pe firms, all of which makes for a well-documented, albeit one-dimensional story. It's unclear that the rigorous coverage of the financial saga licenses general notability. Advocata (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Roche, Eoin; Jankowitz, Robert P (2015-02-23). "Moody's affirms B3 CFR of UTEX Industries, outlook remains negative". Moody's Corporation. Archived from the original on 2017-06-09. Retrieved 2017-06-09.
  The article notes:
  
  Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings, including the B3 Corporate Family Rating and B3-PD probability of default rating, of UTEX Industries, Inc. ("UTEX"). The rating outlook remains negative.
  ...
  The B3 corporate family rating reflects UTEX's small size, a high degree of financial leverage, an aggressive financial policy, and the company's heavy exposure to the cyclical oil and gas market which is currently undergoing a major downturn. The rating benefits from a demonstrated track record of earnings growth, strong free cash flow generating capabilities, and a good liquidity profile. The rating is further supported by the customized and consumable nature of many of the company's products which we believe will partially mitigate on-going earnings pressure resulting for the downturn in UTEX's key end markets.
  ...
  UTEX Industries, Inc., headquartered in Houston, Texas, is a designer and manufacturer of highly engineered specialty sealing and down-hole products primarily for the oil and gas industry. Key products include well service packings, custom tailored products, specialty valves, mining and oilfield products and spring energized seals. UTEX was acquired by affiliates of Riverstone Holdings LLC in April 2013.
  Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says:
  There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.
  Although UTEX Industries is not a publicly traded corporation, I am quoting this text here to emphasize that analyst reports like this Moody's report can be used to establish notability.
2. Lattman, Peter (2013-06-19). "Private Equity Firm Tied to New York Pension Scandal Raises $7.7 Billion From Investors". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-06-09. Retrieved 2017-06-09.
  The article notes:
  
  The settlement with Mr. Cuomo has not slowed Riverstone down. Last year, the firm and Apollo Global Management led a $7.15 billion acquisition of the exploration and production unit of the El Paso Corporation and also paid $825 million for UTEX Industries, a maker of sealing products for oil-and-gas drilling. Those prominent deals and other profitable investments helped attract public pensions and other deep-pocketed clients to Riverstone’s latest fund.
  $825 million is a substantial acquisition.
3. Scott, Mike (2014-10-16). "UTEX to consolidate operations, bolster base". Rubber & Plastics News. Crain Communications. Archived from the original on 2017-06-09. Retrieved 2017-06-09.
  The article notes:
  
  UTEX Industries Inc. plans to consolidate its Singapore operations by constructing a 48,000 sq.-ft. facility that is expected to employ up to 60 by the end of this year.
  The company manufactures custom engineered rubber and urethane solutions for a variety of industries.
  ...
  The Singapore office is expected to support UTEX Industries' operations in the Middle East.
  The company has more than 600 employees worldwide with seven manufacturing facilities in the U.S., all located in Texas, and one in Northcumberland, England.
  The Houston-based firm has another sales office in Brazil.
  UTEX Industries has operated a sales office in Singapore since 2011 that traditionally has been supported by engineering and manufacturing efforts in the U.S.
4. "Utex Industries buys Accuseal name, sealing business". Rubber & Plastics News. Crain Communications. 2000-11-10. Archived from the original on 2017-06-09. Retrieved 2017-06-09.
  The article notes:
  
  Utex Industries Inc., maker of mechanical seals and other molded elastomer products, has acquired the Accuseal name and polymeric seal business from Corrosion Control Corp. The deal allows Houston-based Utex the opportunity to fill a hole in its offerings with Accuseal´s spring-energized polymer seals, made of polyesters and Teflons. Accuseal, which also makes silicone-filled seals, is now a division of Utex and will be based in a leased 11,000-sq.-ft. facility in Houston near the company´s corporate offices. Accuseal moved from Lakewood, Colo.
5. Meyer, Bruce (2007-07-09). "Private equity = opportunity". Rubber & Plastics News. Crain Communications. Archived from the original on 2017-06-09. Retrieved 2017-06-09.
  The article notes:
  
  Houston-based Utex is a designer and maker of gaskets and engineered seals for the oil and gas, water distribution, aerospace, medical, food and beverage, chemical and petrochemical, power generation, and general industrial markets.
  The firm was founded in 1940 as Universal Packing and Gasket, and has plants totaling almost 400,000 square feet of space in Hou-ston, Conroe, Weimar and Odessa, Texas.
  It calls itself the largest rubber molder in the southern U.S., having made several acquisitions over the years, including Applied Rubber Technology Inc. and more recently Accuseal. Utex itself was purchased two years ago by Grey Mountain Partners, according to the company's Web site.
  Mike Balas will continue as CEO, and the rest of the management team will remain in place. He said in a statement that the Audax purchase would give Utex new investment and growth opportunities and solidify its position for long-term success.
6. Kim, Soyoung; Roumeliotis, Greg (2013-01-29). "RPT-Rhone Capital's Utex Industries explores sale-sources". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2017-06-09. Retrieved 2017-06-09.
  The article notes:
  
  Jan 29 Utex Industries, a U.S. manufacturer of sealing products and services used for oil and gas drilling, is exploring a sale of the company that could fetch as much as $800 million, two people familiar with the matter said.
  New York-based private equity firm Rhone Capital, which acquired Utex for an undisclosed sum in 2010, has hired Lazard Ltd to conduct a sale, one of the sources said.
  ...
  Founded in 1940 and based in Houston, Texas, Utex makes what are known in the industry as highly engineered specialty sealing solutions and downhole consumables used for oil and gas drilling, as well as water management and mining, according to its website.
7. "Riverstone Holdings signs agreement to buy Utex Industries". Sealing Technology. Vol. 2013, no. 4. Elsevier. April 2013. p. 4. doi:10.1016/S1350-4789(13)70133-8. Archived from the original on 2017-06-09. Retrieved 2017-06-09. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
  The article notes:
  
  In the USA, Riverstone Holdings Llc is to acquire fluid sealing company Utex Industries Inc from Rhone Capital Llc. Equity for the deal is coming from Riverstone Global Energy & Power Fund V Lp.
  The financial terms of this transaction were not disclosed. The deal, which is subject to certain regulatory approvals, is expected to close as this issue of Sealing Technology goes to press.
  Founded in 1940, Utex Industries manufactures engineered sealing and other speciality products used in a variety of applications, and equipment related to onshore and offshore oil and gas drilling and production, power generation, mining, water treatment, and other industrial sectors.
  Many of the company's products are used in severe operating environments, where high pressures and temperatures present particular challenges that require unique and customised technology and products. The majority of Utex Industries' products are "consumables" with short life-cycles and need to be replaced at regular intervals to avoid failure in critical, capital-intensive applications.
8. "Today's digest". Austin American-Statesman. 1989-02-16. Archived from the original on 2017-06-09. Retrieved 2017-06-09.
  The article notes:
  
  UTEX settles case
  Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox said UTEX Inc., a copier-machine company, agreed to refund nearly $8,000 to small-business customers, churches and schools in Central Texas. Mattox's office had sued in district court, saying UTEX sold used equipment by representing it as new. Mattox said the company replaced copy-counter meters and exterior panels to make the machines appear new. UTEX must also pay the state $40,000 in penalties and costs.
9. Gracey, Michael T. (2006). High Pressure Pumps. Oxford: Elsevier. p. 44. ISBN 0080458378. Retrieved 2017-06-09.
  The book notes:
  
  In a paper presented in 1998, Fred Pippert explained that in 1964, Utex Industries developed the first nonadjustable plunger packing material designed to address recipocrating pump-sealing problems. This material was composed of nitrile rubber and nylon fabric composite laminated material and was then molded into packing called the J-Design 838. In 1992, Utex began to investigate new elastomer systems that could allow the production of plunger packing material that could operate at higher pressures and temperatures as well as operate with less maintenance. Testing and evaluation were conducted, and in 1997, the new composite was introduced and given the name SuperGold.
10. H. B. O. (2006-04-10). "W.P. Carey Seals a Sale-Leaseback Deal for UTEX Industries". Private Placement Letter. Vol. 24, no. 4. SourceMedia. ISSN 1099-3401.
  The article notes:
  
  UTEX Industries, a privately owned company founded in 1940, is a total solution provider of fluid sealing products. It designs, manufactures and services molded packing and seals for reciprocating pumps, hydraulics, proprietary high-tech O-ring seals, custom rubber molded products, mechanical seals, compression packing, gaskets, sheet gasket products and maintenance products, according to the company's profile.
  In August, private equity firm and the issuer's financial partner Grey Mountain Partners acquired UTEX Industries, Inc., according to company information.
11. Fest, Glen (2014-05-14). "Price Talk Set for UTEX". High Yield Report. SourceMedia. ISSN 1094-8945.
  The article notes:
  
  Price talk has emerged for UTEX Industries' $725 million loan offer to fund a dividend and to repay the company's existing first- and second-lien debt.
  The loans are divided between a first-lien loan of $475 million, a $50 million first-lien revolver and a second-lien tranche of $200 million. Price talk on the first-lien facility is 425 bps over Libor with a 99 cents on the dollar original issue discount, according to KDP Investment Advisors. The second-lien has price talk of Libor plus 750 bps, also with a 99-cent OID.
12. Fest, Glen (2014-04-21). "UTEX Industries Launching $775M Loan". High Yield Report. SourceMedia. ISSN 1094-8945.
  The article notes:
  
  Moody's revised the outlook to negative from stable as a result of the "significant increase" in leverage from the dividend, with debt-to-Eitda growing to 6.6x from 4.5x. Moody's says the debt will diminish the company's financial flexibility and represents a "significantly more aggressive" financial policy that will make "UTEX's ability to meet its cash flow targets and reduce leverage over the coming quarters will be critical rating considerations," the report stated.
  ...
  UTEX issued the existing $300 million term loan and a $140 million second-lien loan in March 2013 to help finance its $825 million buyout by private equity sponsor Riverstone Holdings.
  UTEX designs and makes custom engineered sealing products and solutions catering to oil and gas, water treatment and distribution, aerospace, medical, food and beverage, chemical and petrochemical, power generation, and general industrial segments.
13. Sibayan, Karen (2013-03-25). "UTEX Plans $540M in Loans". High Yield Report. SourceMedia. ISSN 1094-8945.
  The article notes:
  
  UTEX Industries is planning to issue a $350 million first-lien credit facility comprising a $300 million term loan and a $50 million revolver. The Houston, Texas-based company is also proposing a $140 million second-lien credit facility, according to Standard & Poor's.
  Proceeds from the debt will be for financing private equity firm Riverstone Holdings' $825 million purchase of UTEX from Rhone Capital.
  S&P assigned its B corporate credit rating to the U.S. oil and gas service provider while giving its B issue-level and 3 recovery ratings to the first-lien senior secured credit facility and its CCC+ issue-level and 6 recovery ratings to the second-lien credit facility.
  S&P's ratings on UTEX indicates the company's small size and scale of operations, limited end-market and product diversity. The agency also considers the sealing products manufacturer's vulnerability to the highly volatile oil and gas exploration sector, its ownership by private equity, and its very aggressive leverage.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow UTEX Industries to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UTEX Industries participants and closer who have not commented here: Yunshui (talk · contribs), DESiegel (talk · contribs), The Average Wikipedian (talk · contribs), Guy Macon (talk · contribs), and Majora (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not intend to !vote on this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the sources in Cunard's unnecessary wall of text above count as "Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources" - it's a load of PR-based stuff or passing mentions. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The analyst report from Moody's Corporation says, "Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings, including the B3 Corporate Family Rating and B3-PD probability of default rating, of UTEX Industries, Inc. ("UTEX"). The rating outlook remains negative."
An article that says UTEX Industries' "rating outlook remains negative" and provides analysis to support this view is neither PR-based nor a passing mention. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says, "Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports."
Another source provides negative coverage of the subject: "S&P's ratings on UTEX indicates the company's small size and scale of operations, limited end-market and product diversity. The agency also considers the sealing products manufacturer's vulnerability to the highly volatile oil and gas exploration sector, its ownership by private equity, and its very aggressive leverage." That is neither PR-based nor a passing mention.
Cunard (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –XboxGamer22408^talk 02:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete, but encourage rewriting~~ It's an interesting question when someone write a promotional article, and a proper search for sources provides material from which one could write a very different article with a NPOV that represents the situation in a much less positive way, whether we should rewrite the article appropriately. My feeling is that we should keep it in only if someone actually does rewrite it. If Cunard, with his undoubted competence at NPOV writing and sourcing in this field, were to rewrite it now, I would say keep, but as this has not yet been done, I'm therefore saying delete, but encouraging Cunard to use the sources to write a proper article. My feeling about this could be summarized as "hoist by their own petard". DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG (talk · contribs), I have rewritten the article. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. just what I hoped for. An excellent example of WP:HEY.Companies can be notable because of widely reported financial problems, not just sucesses. People who commented earlier might want to look again: @Exemplo347, Lankiveil, K.e.coffman, Onel5969, HighKing, and E.M.Gregory: DGG ( talk ) 09:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unchanged -- still a "Delete" for me; the coverage is routine: transactions, products, etc. The article is still subtly promotional, as in "Most of the company's products have short product lifecycles so must be replenished periodically to prevent important tools from not working." -- "to prevent important tools from not working"? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Riverstone Holdings signs agreement to buy Utex Industries". Sealing Technology. Vol. 2013, no. 4. Elsevier. April 2013. p. 4. doi:10.1016/S1350-4789(13)70133-8. Archived from the original on 2017-06-09. Retrieved 2017-06-09. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
The source says:
The majority of Utex Industries' products are "consumables" with short life-cycles and need to be replaced at regular intervals to avoid failure in critical, capital-intensive applications.
The quoted text is an accurate paraphrasing of the source.
If you have a better paraphrase of the source, please modify the sentence.
Cunard (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Riverstone Holdings signs agreement to buy Utex Industries", by the sound of it, is redressed press release. That's why, when paraphrased, it still sounds promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed "important". Cunard (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I nominated this article earlier. I'm less interested in the quality of articles and more focussed on whether the topic is notable. There have now been at least two sources that pass the criteria for establishing notability. Also, thanks to Cunard for overhauling the previous versions of the article, this article is less promotional. I'm satisfied to change to a "Keep" in this instance. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 07:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cöln-Frechener Strassenbahn BENZELRATH

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

Unremarkable individual locomotive. Fails GNG. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unremarkable does not apply, as this is not about a person/event/group/music. Fails GNG: not the case. Sufficient material is available for an article. Although the arguments are void, I do agree that deletion in this case is possible, as the article could be combined with another article of a closely related locomotive, although these are not of the same type. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonsvr (talk • contribs) 19:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG applies to all articles on Wikipedia, including companies, things, concepts, philosophies, buildings, etc. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is about a individual train locomotive, not a class or model. It was used from 1904 to 1924. There's no claim of notability. Not a candidate for WP:A7 speedy deletion due to technicalities, but it can be deleted in AfD. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Libre (word)

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

Previously deleted under the title "Libre" (see discussion), later undeleted and dragged through AFC after some cosmetic tweaks. The issues raised in the previous nomination have not been addressed at all; I think the nomination statement I wrote back then could stand today as-is. (I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure what it speaks about the Articles for Creation process.) Here is a new rationale anyway.

This article spends most time discussing various strands of the broadly-construed free-culture movement (which is already covered elsewhere anyway), with a particular focus on using the word "libre" when referring to them, even if the references provided in the article do not even contain the word. After that, it goes off wild tangents in order to connect topics with very little to no relation to each other. Please especially take note of sentences like "Several albums with title tracks containing the word libre have achieved international acclaim and some have been nominated for Grammy Awards." (no citation for this, of course) and completely made-up claims like that the masks of Pussy Riot members are inspired by lucha libre wrestlers. No, they are not: this is simply what you end up with when you take a piece of cloth to conceal your face and cut some holes in it for the eyes and the mouth; there are very few degrees of freedom here in how the result may end up looking. This is silly pareidolia.

This is not an encyclopedia article, but an original-research, WP:COATRACK, rambling essay-like piece apparently written to advance an obscure-ish activist cause. Even if an article about the ostensible topic of this article (the word "libre") were warranted, it better be written from scratch. —Keφr 15:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is as bad as the nominator suggests. The page does nothing that the Libre disambiguation page doesn't already do. WP:NOT a dictionary. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also consider deleting Gratis versus libre. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure any of those sources discuss the concept of "Libre" in the sense of the article. Article seems to have come straight out of someone's head.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting Patna FC

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

No evidence of notability Qed237 (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found only 1 article on the subject (which may be a similarily name team as it is high school team), thus not enough to write an article. Spshu (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found only one ref mentioning this team, a passing mention. Surely not notable. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable football club, no independent reliable source found and there is no evidence that the club has ever played at a notable level of football. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 07:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails GNG, non notable low level league Fenix down (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014-15 Karachi Football League

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

Non notable and completely unreferenced season article for a regional football league. Qed237 (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mfarazbaig (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we don't usually have season articles for such a low level of football; in addition to this, I can't see this meeting GNG Spiderone 07:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After a quick search via Google I found absoulty nothing on this league with a search giving me results of this page and similar so therfor this fails WP:GNG guidelines and it is a fail for me Matt294069 is coming 03:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Alabama gubernatorial election, 2018#Republican primary. (non-admin closure) f e minist 11:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Carrington

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

fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG as it states here WP:POLOUTCOMES "American county-level legislators are considered to be similarly not-inherently notable just like municipal politicians." unless they pass GNG and here I don't believe he does. Domdeparis (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alabama gubernatorial election, 2018#Republican primary. He isn't notable, but he could reasonably be a search term for the upcoming election, and would become notable if he wins. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or redirect per Muboshgu. People do not get articles just for being as yet unelected candidates in party primaries — a person has to hold a notable political office, not just run for one, to clear WP:NPOL on his political activities. But neither smalltown city councils nor county commissions are offices that pass NPOL, there's no evidence of preexisting notability for reasons outside of politics, the article is written more like a campaign brochure than a proper encyclopedia article, and the referencing is a mixture of primary sources and routine coverage of his candidacy announcement, with very little evidence of reliable source coverage about him in any context that would actually support preexisting notability at all. So no prejudice against recreation in 2018 if he wins the gubernatorial election, but nothing here right now is enough to get him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cruft. Fenix down (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sports clubs on social media

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

Non-notable list of clubs based on social media. Qed237 (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I just saw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football clubs on social media which resulted in delete. An article also created by this editor. Qed237 (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: violates WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and possibly few other policies. Not at all encyclopaedic. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under CSD G4 as a possible recreation relating to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football clubs on social media Ajf773 (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - largely per this discussion of a rather similar article, would be willing to reconsider my vote if the format of the article was different but at the moment it largely fails WP:LISTCRUFT as stated above. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate Spiderone 12:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this WP:LISTCRUFT. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic average home attendances of football clubs

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

First of all it is an non-notable list of attendances. Secondly, there is no evidence that this is complete as all numbers are individually sourced, but also it is an arbitrary cut-off point at 30,000. Qed237 (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - indiscriminate, non-notable list. Cubbie15fan (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I might have suggested a merge, but since this information is already in other articles, it renders this article unneeded. Also as the above vote points out the article is pretty vague in its inclusion and exclusion of information. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Precedent is fairly mixed, compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Hockey League attendance figures, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of attendance figures at football clubs and leagues (hmm, based on that, one could consider a speedy WP:CSD#G4 here). On the discussion above: There is clear evidence of "notability", as attendance numbers are part of every match report and widely reported in multiple sources. The question is whether such a list violates WP:NOTSTATS and whether the mix of leagues is something seen in other such statistics or not (if Wikipedia is the only place that publishes such a list, it violates WP:SYNTH, for example like List of sports attendance figures probably does). As to the suggestion of a merge: where would I find the information what the ten clubs with the highest average league attendances are? —Kusma (t·c) 20:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: some websites such as FIFA or UEFA's official websites might have that information. Maybe a statistic site such as soccerway. There are some sources such as these (1, 2, 3, 4) might be helpful if you are interested in this subject. Hope that helps - Inter&anthro (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So the information can't be found on Wikipedia, but elsewhere. Your links actually prove notability of the topic. —Kusma (t·c) 08:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I interpreted your original post as if there are more sources covering this subject, there are indeed articles on Wikipedia covering this subject, such as List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues and List of record home attendances of English football clubs. I would be more than willing to change my vote if this article is proven notable, the only problem is that the stuff I provided as well as all but one I believe of the citations provided in the article fall under WP:PRIMARY, so that would be an obstacle in keeping this article. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are secondary or tertiary sources. Press releases from the clubs in question would be primary sources. —Kusma (t·c) 15:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscriminate list of stats. Ajf773 (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per previous discussions Spiderone 12:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per previous discussions, not seeing anything changing since then, ad WP:NOTSTATS. Fenix down (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per several concerns about the article needing cleanup, I have added the {{Cleanup AfD}} template atop the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral of Praise

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

No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. (Sources are one news item about an individual incident, one mention in a book, and a lot of links to the church's own website and Ffacebook page.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable organisation. Sources are self-published and have no depth. Ajf773 (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable church. It brought Steven Curtis Chapman to Manila (fundraiser for orphans) (STEVEN CURTIS CHAPMAN RETURNS TO MANILA, The Manila Times; Manila [Manila]20 June 2007 [3]; Also this article: (Rise of Filipino fundamentalism triggers new religious tug-of- war, Johnson, Bryan. The Globe and Mail; Toronto, Ont. [Toronto, Ont]11 May 1989: A.1. ) which I have just added to the aritcle. Note also that the Church was established by Lester Sumrall. I did not clean the article up, it's got lots of self-sourced PROMO. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: books discussing this Church under its old name "Manila Bethel Temple" [4], and its current name [5].E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Not a good article and too much reliance on non-RS, but a church with 15000 members ought to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article could use a lot of cleanup, but at the very least the church is clearly notable: it's been covered by news media (both locally and abroad). As an example, here's a news item from ABS-CBN News. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added additional cites but I think this needs a lot of cleanup --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Taraxacum officinale. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 17:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taraxalisin

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

Not really a notable topic. RES2773 (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This may help put the subject into perspective. As conveyed by its name, Taraxalisin relates to the properties of Taraxacum officinale. IMO a legitimate phytochemical topic. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 08:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Taraxacum officinale. This seems to be about 2 sentences worth in the "Herbal medicine" section. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google Scholar search linked above by 84.73.134.206 demonstrates that this is indeed a notable topic because of the amount of research published on this enzyme. It can be mentioned at Taraxacum officinale, but I think there is sufficient material available in reliable sources from which to expand this stub into a stand-alone article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Taraxacum officinale. I agree with the above comments supporting a merge. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Taraxacum officinale per above. That's a happy result and it's nice to know the fancy name. --Lockley (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Simmons (music publisher)

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

I can't find anything, in the article or on the internet, to convince me Simmons meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. The creator is a paid editor and was paid to create this, but that doesn't say he is or is not notable. What do others think? Boleyn (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete full of grandiose uncited claims. Unless citated then seems like a hoax. LibStar (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Just not seeing RS unconnected with the subject. I sense an almost desperate need to seek validation via the article, whose sources do not treat the subject in insufficient depth or breadth to meet GNG or BIO. I thought WP:PAID's were supposed to comment on talk pages rather than actually edit? Perhaps before seeking payment for creating articles, one should familiarize oneself with inclusion criteria and search for RS on the subject first. One might want to run such an article through AfC to iron out any difficulties before going live in article space. If someone truly meets inclusion criteria, it's likely an experienced editor will write the article for the joy of doing so.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
further rant The edit summary was, "This page has been created to showcase the work that David has done including a musical about Woody Allen and one about Meyer Lanksy." That sort of thing is just something for which Wikipedia is not.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Vanity article - borderline WP:G11. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sapna Choudhary

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

No-notable Singer fails WP:MUSICBIO none of the sources are reliable. FITINDIA 12:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 12:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete online presence, but no RS. Just another person with singing ability, not notable work, so not notable person. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did find an article about her in The Hindu which I added to the Wiki article and her suicide attempt is described in The Times of India. There are RS about her, but since she's 21, this article may be TOOSOON. Also, anyone fluent in Hindi should probably take a look at the sources, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: i am fluent in hindi, and nope, the sources dont make her notable. And I dont think we should consider a person as notable if he/she has attempted to commit suicide. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You echo my thoughts, too, Usernamekiran. I think she's a case of TOOSOON. I was also uncomfortable that the RS were mostly about her attempted suicide. Thanks for looking into it more in-depth! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet GNG. Don't see an assertion of significance. There's way too much about her personal life and a dearth of information on anything that would make her notable. This would be more appropriate on a blog or webhost.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:TOOSOON Exemplo347 (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moghalpura Railway Workshops

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

While this company certainly exists, not nearly enough in-depth coverage to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches revealed zero on News, Newspapers, Scholar, or JSTOR. A very few trivial mentions on Books. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP. I was unable to find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Louise van Veenendaal

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

Non notable reality show contestant. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lacks significant roles in notable productions. Claimed chart is not a goodchart duffbeerforme (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her Australian theatre roles are in independent productions and not notable. The American performances do not appear to be notable. Boneymau (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not remotely notable ; a/c the article "She is now very well known for her portrayal of 'Princess Peach' in that particular video. " -- a Youtube video based on the game Mario Bros. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to draft. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle

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

Until it is confirmed by Ubisoft or Nintendo, this game is simply a rumour. All these "leaks" may be fake. We'll find out at E3, but until then this game is only a rumour and should not be stated as fact. See WP:RUMOUR. Geesi (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comicbook.com already verified the authenticity of the leak with their Ubisoft sources: [6]. Multiple reliable video game sources say the game the is real and there are enough details to begin an article. Regardless, if the consensus is that there should not be a mainspace article yet, then I have no problem with it being moved to draftspace in the meantime. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft - Despite it being almost certainly true, the game hasn't been officially announced by Ubisoft, so why are we changing the way we normally handle leaks like this? Verifying a leak doesn't make the game official, at least to normal Wikipedia guidelines. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft - It's a rumor, we shouldn't have an article about it yet, but there's also far too much corroborating information to believe this is not going to happen (particularly with E3 weeks away). We can't talk about it in mainspace, but drafting it for now (since there are RSes discussing the rumor) and then moving back to mainspace when a formal announcement happens is fine. --MASEM (t) 19:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft: per Masem. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft baring an extremely elaborate hoax this will almost certainly be announced soon, likely during E3 in mid June and can be moved back then.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. There is no deadline, so it doesn't need to be an article yet. This rumor is basically confirmed by everyone except the company that we need it confirmed from to actually have an article, which is why none of us (so far) have voted "delete". — Gestrid (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per WP:G7. So Why 11:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Petito

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

Declined A7 speedy because the article contains a number of claims of appearing in multiple commercials for notable companies and having coverage in magazines.

Unfortunately, such coverage cannot be found. A single newspaper mentions him as an example with multiple other child models but that's it as far as I can tell. The TV and movie appearances were only as extras, nothing more. Most likely created by the subject or someone close to them but despite the likely COI the text is not spammy enough to justify G11 deletion, so I'm bringing it here. Regards So Why 09:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you visit the website that is linked in the article you will find all relevant photo's from the catalogues, TVC's etc. If you visit www.harveypetito.com and view the seperate tabs, each contains all of his body of work. In fact, if you follow the links within the wiki article they are all there too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harveypetitofan (talk • contribs) 11:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC) — Harveypetitofan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete blatant self-promotion littered with spamlinks, no independent third-party sources, absolutely no evidence that he meets our notability criteria Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a promotional article per WP:NOTSPAM. Claims of significance here do not reach the threshold of notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I can see where this is headed. Just delete the page. --Harveypetitofan (talk) 07:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Total misuse of EL's and absolute failure of WP:BLP. Ajf773 (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Robert Moore

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

There is nothing in the article except the relationship to his parents which identifies why this person is notable. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 08:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Roger Moore where most of this material already exists. --Lockley (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTINHERITED Power~enwiki (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect He doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:FILMMAKER or other occupation-based notability guidelines, and media coverage is mostly in the context of his father without going into much depth. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTINHERITED NickCT (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Despite the very long discussion, no one but the article creator advocated keeping it, with the consensus being that the subject is not notable. So Why 08:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N4 (record producers)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Of the 9 sources only one of them is about N4 and contradicts the article. It starts of by saying "You've never heard of him, but Freek van Workum making beats for TI, 2Chainz and Kid Ink" and says that N4 is an alias for him...no mention of the other producers. The article says we have never heard of him...and the dearth of sources supports this statement. All the other sources are simple credits. As far as I am aware producers are not concerned by WP:NMUSIC so must fulfill WP:NORG which as presented this company does not meet. Domdeparis (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment Please read all of the references thoroughly. N4 is clearly shown to consist of more than one producer and has been credited for major releases that are deemed notable. These works have charted on Billboard, been certified gold and platinum, and had significant exposure on multiple occasions.

The fact that people had at one point never heard of a producer, yet Vice has published an article outlining his/their success says it all. There are a lot of people who are not interviewed or often written about, but are credited to major works. They are clearly notable and have entries (e.g., Bangladesh (record producer). In regards to your argument of "never heard of him", please read: http://www.creativeloafing.com/music/article/13058131/the-biggest-rap-producer-youve-never-heard-of

How does WP:NORG relate to a music group or producers? If we are talking about McDonald's or the United Nations, I can understand this argument.

In regards to WP:NMUSIC:

Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:

Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. YES
Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria. YES

Music producers are a key element of a songs success and are also entitled to certifications and awards, such as Grammy Awards (Please see: https://www.grammy.org/files/pages/producer_definitions_for_awards.pdf) Perhaps some of the terminology at WP:NMUSIC should be updated to avoid confusion from individuals not familiar with the subject.

Producers often credited as the writers and/or composers of music. Music credits can be a tricky thing. At times, the individuals are credited under their real names, artist names, group names, or even typos. N4 has been credited for all of these. Bobbybobbie (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reply All articles have to meet the WP:GNG which means that there has to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Significant coverage" is defined as coverage that addresses the subject directly and in depth. None of the sources do this. Here is as requested a thorough look at all the references:

freekvanworkum.net-not independent as it is the web site of one of the members of N4 and doesn't even mention N4
noisey.vice.com- this is an interview with freek van workum that claims that N4 is an alias for freek van workum

Memory Lane- not independent, N4 is on their roster
The source- not in-depth, the article is about Kid ink N4 is simply listed with 9 other producers he works with
Billboard- doesn't mention N4
Barnes and Noble- not in depth, N4 is simply credited among 24 producers
WWE- doesn't mention N4
EA- doesn't mention N4
Billboard- doesn't mention N4
Tunefind- doesn't mention N4
Official Charts- doesn't mention N4
itunes- doesn't mention N4

So to summarise there is only one source that is in depth but is in fact a solo interview with Freek van workum that wrongly suggests that N4 is his alias. The subject must meet the criteria in WP:NORG because N4 is an organisation, in the way that Wikipedia defines it, that produces records for artists but it is not an artistic group such as a band so the WP:NMUSIC criteria do not apply (maybe that could be changed but this is not the place to discuss that). So I confirm my analysis that this page does not show notability for N4 and despite the fact that the company has produced notable artists and other producers are notable, notability is neither inherited nor inherent. Domdeparis (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reply

Memory Lane (publishing group) - Listed to replace a poorly referenced link added to show the members of N4.
Noisey/Vice - N4 notability - Freek van Workum is a part of N4, a referral to N4 is inclusive of him. If N4 was not notable, they would not bother to mention it.
The Source - N4 is credited
Billboard - Song notability
Barnes and Noble - N4 is credited
WWE - Song notability
EA - Song notability
Billboard - Song notability
Tunefind - Song notability
Official Charts - Song notability
iTunes - Song notability
Allmusic - N4 is credited
Discogs - N4 is credited

All of those articles are mentioned to show the notability of the songs/albums, and then show that N4 (and it's members) are credited to those songs/albums.

"N4 is an organization". In this case WP:NORG does not apply, please read at the end of the first paragraph where it says, "For example, people gathered together for the purpose of making music are covered by WP:MUSIC." This is exactly what N4 does. As I have shown, N4 clearly satisfies the criteria listed in WP:MUSIC. Bobbybobbie (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reply

And when you go to NMUSIC you will see that it refers to artists, bands, composers and lyricists. And as N4 have never been credited as being one of these for a notable song NMUSIC does not apply. I'm sorry but you are clutching at straws. I may be wrong there may be a precedent that overrules the notability guidelines but rather than trying to give a definition to something that is contrary to the guidelines it points to I would suggest that you search for sources that prove their notability as producers. Until then and so as keep this discussion manageable I will not reply any more. Good luck and happy editing. Domdeparis (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reply

N4 has been clearly shown to consist of more than one member, the members have been listed together on all notable songs, either under their own names, under N4, or both, as producers, writers, and composers. Notability as producers/writers/composers has been proven. The links show their credits, even the art work on Money and the Power shows it. They are listed as a production/writer group (by the publishing group). Differentiating the individual names and the group names is trivial. Are you suggesting a page for each member of N4?

Perhaps the WP:MUSIC page does need to be updated. If a producer is credited and able to receive a Grammy Award is it not notable? Remember, they have been credited for production, writing, and composing the songs.

You seem to show a lack of understanding on this topic and went against a senior editors decision to not delete the page. No further input is required. Bobbybobbie (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't let that one past. I originally tagged for speedy delete which is simply a way of avoiding a deletion discussion this was refused but that doesn't mean that the subject is notable. Please read WP:DPAFD this should help you understand the deletion process, and try and keep your comments on subject and avoid making personal remarks please, these are often seen by the community as being a way of trying to discredit another's arguments when one is on shaky ground. You said something interesting though could you clarify which songs N4 has been credited as having written or composed because this is clearly a criteria for notability if the song is notable. I may have missed that in the article. From what I can see there is just a list of songs produced. Domdeparis (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You consistently bring up irrelevant points and change your reason(s) for deletion. This is why I can only assume you are not very knowledgable on the topic of music.

The title "producer" if often used in place or alongside the titles "composer" and "writer". Please see: https://www.discogs.com/Kendrick-Lamar-Section-80/release/5360202 for Kendrick Lamar's album Section 80. There are no credits listed for writers or composers. By your logic, this album and it's producers have no notability.

Another example can be shown here: http://www.allmusic.com/album/through-the-pain-she-told-me-mw0000488310/credits. Sean Combs has been listed as a composer, and Diddy (the same person) has been listed as executive producer, primary artist and producer. It may seem confusing, but this is a common practice in the music industry.

Wikipedia's own page for Record producer needs some serious work, but this might help you: Understanding the Music Business. Please read under the section "Songpluggers" where it says, "In the rock and hip-hop fields, the artist generally either writes her own matieral or co-writes with a producer."

Additionally, see: Producers: What They Do & Why You Should Consider Using One. Please read under the section "What Do Producers Do?" where it says, "On the other end of the spectrum are the producers who are involved in every element of the recording from co-writing the songs to engineering to playing one or even all of the instruments."

Common sense should prevail in this situation, it is clear that N4 consists of more than one producer/writer/composer, all of whom are individually credited on each song/album alongside N4. Bobbybobbie (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bobbybobbie: it is OK to edit your own comments if it has been only a short while but reediting your comments every 2 hours or so is not considered best practice. Please read WP:REDACT. Thank you Domdeparis (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for mentioning this, @Domdeparis:. I made some minor changes to improve the readability for any other editors. I can easily follow the guidelines set out at WP:REDACT.

I would like to add that your requirement of significant coverage is invalid. This falls within the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles".

In the case of this article, the following applies under "Criteria for composers and lyricists":

Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. YES
Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria. YES

In addition to this, please read the section "Others" where it states, "Composers and performers outside mass media traditions may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria":

Has composed a number of notable melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable music genre. YES Bobbybobbie (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reply

that's great congratulations! before I can withdraw the Afd can you please provide the sources that prove that N4 is credited as composer on notable songs because I don't think you've added them to the article page. Domdeparis (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:MUSIC where it states, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."

Common sense would agree that the individual members of N4, alongside N4 itself - have been credited to several notable works.

Common sense would agree that in the example of Sean Combs (see here), that both names can used for the same person, but for different credits.

Common sense would agree that the title "producer" can and has been used with or in lieu of "composer" and/or "writer" (see here and see Section 80).

I have provided numerous examples and resources throughout this discussion - in order to educate you on the intricacies of crediting, and on notability - in the field of music.

I cannot completely blame you, as the page record producer is a mess, and this could carry on to other areas of Wikipedia, thus confusing those who have little to no prior knowledge on the subject. Bobbybobbie (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to improve the article, @Domdeparis:. I am sorry if any of the comments seemed personal. Bobbybobbie (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

so no sources to show that N4 were the composers then? So nothing to back up the fact that they meet NMUSIC a part from your affirmation that producer=composer? So I'll let this ride out. If you want NMUSIC to be changed there's a talk page where you'll be able to discuss it with other "experts" like yourself. I nominated this page on the basis that it doesn't meet GNG which it doesn't. I gave you plenty of opportunites to improve the article pointed you to the different policies and you stubbornly camped on your position that producers are covered by NMUSIC. We'll see what others think now. Domdeparis (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis:, I am flattered, but I don't consider myself an "expert"; however, I have had several years of experience in the music industry. How about yourself?

Do you actually read anything that I write here? I can't go on repeating myself. Numerous other articles on producers have been submitted and accepted on Wikipedia, based on the exact same criteria.

Question time:

Has N4 been credited at the same time as the members of N4?
Has N4 and/or its members been credited for writing and/or composing?
If N4 has been listed as a producer and it's members have been listed as writers and composers, what does common sense tell you?
Did you read all of the educational links that I posted here? If so, what did you learn from them? (Crediting, names in credits, and the role of a producer.)

You say that WP:MUSIC doesn't apply, when WP:NORG states that it does. Within WP:MUSIC, the most logical criteria would be "Criteria for composers and lyricists". *Gasps* Are you defying the notability criteria at WP:NORG in which you - yourself referred to? WP:GNG refers the subject of music specifically to WP:MUSIC (again).

To be honest, I have been waiting for other (knowledgable) people to contribute to this discussion the entire time. Bobbybobbie (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no! @Domdeparis:, I have found a few pages that do not meet YOUR criteria. Would you like to mark them all for speedy deletion? Here they are, in no particular order:

Do you want some more? Bobbybobbie (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Domdeparis (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my... I am not actually saying, "They exist! So should this!" I am saying, "Would you like to mark them all for speedy deletion?" (It's also known as sarcasm.)

You didn't answer my questions.

Has N4 been credited at the same time as the members of N4?
Has N4 and/or its members been credited for writing and/or composing?
If N4 has been listed as a producer and it's members have been listed as writers and composers, what does common sense tell you?
Did you read all of the educational links that I posted here? If so, what did you learn from them? (Crediting, names in credits, and the role of a producer.)

The members of N4 would have been listed (individually) under writing/composing for publishing reasons. This is common practice in the music industry. Yes, common sense continues to apply. Bobbybobbie (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is going round in circles we will have to agree to disagree and let others analyse the nomination. Domdeparis (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. In closing, please see The Corporation (record production team). They were credited under "producer" for the song "I Want You Back" by the Jackson 5, but were also credited individually - for writing here. (ASCAP is a very reliable source, when it comes to publishing.) Bobbybobbie (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the above article it had a serious lack of sources to prove notability. A simple web search of "The Corporation Mowtown" turned up literally hundreds including Rolling Stone the Encyclopedia of Popular music the Telegraph Allmusic etc which all treat the subject in-depth. When a subject is really notable it is so easy to find the sources to prove GNG without having to use the notability criteria for a particular category of subject. I have added the sources maybe you could do the same thing for the other articles? Domdeparis (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, boy. Imagine being your teacher...

This example was clearly used to illustrate the fact that a record production group's name is often credited for production, whilst the individuals are credited for writing/composition. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? Bobbybobbie (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute. Are you going to mark The Corporation (record production team) for speedy deletion now?! Bobbybobbie (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis:, you still never answered my questions.

Has N4 been credited at the same time as the members of N4?
Has N4 and/or its members been credited for writing and/or composing?
If N4 has been listed as a producer and it's members have been listed as writers and composers, what does common sense tell you?
Did you read all of the educational links that I posted here? If so, what did you learn from them? (Crediting, names in credits, and the role of a producer.)

We are discussing the fact that N4 is notable based on it's works (as outlined in WP:MUSIC). Bobbybobbie (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the very last time none of the sources point to N4 being notable as per WP:NORG or being the composer or songwriter of a notable song. Notability is not inherited this may be "your" common sense but it is contrary to Wikipedia policy please read this it should help you understand why your common sense is not acceptable to the wikipedia community. WP:NOTINHERITED. As you are so set on N4 being judged by NMUSIC criteria, which I contest, please read criteria 6 and the footnote at the end of these criteria. You really need to reread WP:GNG and try and take on board what is written there. You have been unable to supply sources where N4 is named as composer so I refuse to withdraw the nomination. I am now going to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass as I should have done a long while back, and let others decide. Repeating something 7 or 8 times doesn't make it true...either from my side or yours so lets just agree to disagree and drop the conversation and let others, who will have to wade through the sterile exchanges, decide if the article stays or not. Domdeparis (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both WP:NORG and WP:GNG refer music articles to WP:MUSIC (why else would it exist?)

I've clearly shown that in the case of The Corporation (record production team), they too were credited under "producer" - for the song "I Want You Back" by the Jackson 5, but were also credited individually - for writing here.

Clearly, you refuse to answer my questions - as doing so would completely destroy your argument. Bobbybobbie (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is yet another example: Stargate (music producers). Production teams are clearly credited individually (in many cases) for writing/composing. I would attribute this to publishing. Bobbybobbie (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to record production teams, some members may not be involved in a particular piece of work, therefore each member involved is also credited for publishing reasons. For a clear example of this, please see The Corporation (record production team) and look under the section "Songs". Bobbybobbie (talk) 05:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting WP:NORG and WP:GNG .Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment having refreshed myself on WP:Music-- doesn't meet that either.Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended commentary

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It meets WP:MUSIC. Why do you people think it needs to meet WP:NORG? WP:NORG clearly refers music to WP:MUSIC. Can we please get people on here who understand the category of music? Bobbybobbie (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um how can I put it...this editor is an admin with 11 years experience and 50,000 edits and I think he is probably pretty well versed in policy and notability guidelines for the various categories, or at least better than both you, with your 400 edits and I with my 6,000 edits. Domdeparis (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis:It seems like somebody has called in an old friend.Bobbybobbie (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobbybobbie: I do hope you are not accusing me of Wikipedia:Canvassing @Dlohcierekim:. Domdeparis (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: The comments and timing seem a little suspicious. I sure hope not. Bobbybobbie (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails both WP:NORG and WP:GNG, which are the two over-riding guidelines which should be used. In looking at NMUSIC, this group does not appear to meet any of the criteria in the "others" section. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"@Onel5969:Has composed a number of notable melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable music genre." Bobbybobbie (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite strenuous arguments above to the contrary, there are no sources to support "significant coverage in independent, reliable sources". The only significant coverage is not independent, and the only independent coverage is not significant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Eggishorn: Thank you for looking into the article. They have produced/written notable works as per WP:MUSIC.Bobbybobbie (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobbybobbie:, you may want to read this essay. Most editors, (myself among them) think that notability has to be demonstrated for the article subject on their own merits, not for something they are related to. Your statement that they have produced notable works, therefore, is not persuasive unless there is coverage about the producer group themselves. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn:Please read under "Criteria for composers and lyricists" in WP:MUSIC. There is no mention of coverage, the same for "Others".

Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:

Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. YES
Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria. YES

Nobody has been able to answer these questions, but they should help in the reasoning for creating a page for N4 and not two separate pages for each member; however, this can be done.

Has N4 been credited at the same time as the members of N4?
Has N4 and/or its members been credited for writing and/or composing?
If N4 has been listed as a producer and it's members have been listed as writers and composers, what does common sense tell you?Bobbybobbie (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you bring it up, what common sense tells me, Bobbybobbie, is that you are likely either connected to this group or a fan and are trying to hammer this conversation into using Wikipedia to promote a group of, at best, very marginally notable producers. The "composers" criterion is not evaluated in a vacuum. There have to be actual sources about N4 itself. There is nothing more than credits for the group, which is not persuasive. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: Close... I saw the credits on the cover of the Kid Ink song they produced and looked into them some more. I then saw that they meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Hmmm... people really get upset when I question their knowledge here. I am certain that the sources I have here provided are more than sufficient. I proved that the members were credited for writing, production, and composition. WP:MUSIC is satisfied. Bobbybobbie (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: oh dear...I think you may have started something that you are going to regret...I guarantee that you will have a repeat of the same futile conversation above. "1/ N4 are producers and have produced some notable songs, 2/ some producers are credited as being songwriters so all producers are the songwriters of the songs they produce even if they aren't credited as such. 3/ songwriters of notable songs are notable themselves. 4/ N4 is notable! Q.E.D" (sound of head being banged against a brick wall and the thud of sticks on dead donkeys all around). Domdeparis (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: Well... It clearly does say in WP:MUSIC that they are notable for notable works. I personally don't care what you, or others think, but I go by what has been set out in WP:MUSIC. Anybody who mentions WP:NORG should be disregarded from this discussion. Bobbybobbie (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: If you know how to search for credits, then do so. You didn't even know what Allmusic.com was before this discussion... Try ASCAP too. Bobbybobbie (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis:, I'm not certain I don't regret it already. @Bobbybobbie:, the insurmountable problem is that WP:NMUSIC itself says: ...meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. emphasis in original It goes on to say: ...the article itself must document notability through the use of reliable sources, and no criterion listed in this page confers an exemption from having to reliably source the article just because passage of the criterion has been claimed. emphasis in original This argument is claiming that exact type of exemption from reliable sourcing. As I said before, no independent source offered is significant, and no significant source is independent. This means that, whatever chain of causation (as it were) you wish to claim for recognizing notability has to fail. I'm sure the closer of this discussion will recognize this. You should also read WP:NPA and WP:BLUDGEON. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn:Haha! Oh you are very cheeky! You forgot to quote, "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted" Reliable sources are all there. What would you deem reliable sites for music crediting? They produced, wrote, composed notable songs. End of discussion. Bobbybobbie (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the discussion is over. No, not for the reason (or complete lack thereof) you state. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to answer my questions (as you would have embarrassed yourselves), but continue to converse. I can see that most of you have little understanding of WP:MUSIC and keep referring to other articles to back up your argument. Bobbybobbie (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG and WP:NORG clearly refer music articles to WP:MUSIC and this article's subjects come under "Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists." Why argue against this? There is even a section under "Others". Bobbybobbie (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

angry and outraged reply to a desperate Bobbybobbie. Nope. I just went through a bunch of open AFD's. What timing do you refer to? What evidence to do you present? What makes you think Domdeparis and I are friends? 19:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs) 15:12, June 3, 2017 (UTC) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No desperation over here, Dlohcierekim. I stick to the facts. Bobbybobbie (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has been open for some time and all of a sudden several people have decided to partake. Interesting. Bobbybobbie (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can actually counter my points in regards to WP:MUSIC, nobody can answer my questions, and everybody keeps referring to WP:NORG (when it says to refer to WP:MUSIC). Somebody is saying that other articles supersede WP:MUSIC (where is it stated?) It's all a little strange. Bobbybobbie (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article also meets Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance. Some of you have recently had some speedy deletions declined on this basis. I am starting to think something is up here... It is seems that most people on Wikipedia have general knowledge, but few have specific knowledge on any particular topic. Bobbybobbie (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: You are on the record for saying, "I am not a music buff", yet you continue to judge the topic? That says a lot... I see in a another recent case, you continue to misinterpret WP:MUSIC and argue that an album needs greater evidence of notability, when it was in several music charts (which is a criterion). Wait, this one is my favorite: "As far as I am aware producers are not concerned by WP:NMUSIC so must fulfill WP:NORG which as presented this company does not meet." Anybody with music knowledge will laugh uncontrollably at this. It speaks volumes for the rest of your argument(s) and anybody blindly agreeing with you. Bobbybobbie (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, they have been credited for production, writing, and composing several gold and platinum selling (notable) songs. This passes WP:MUSIC, how does it not?
How do people with little to no experience on music and WP:MUSIC have a voice on here? I get the feeling that we need to make some policy changes. In the future, specific admins should have access to specific categories - when it comes to the deletion process.

I also created DJ Montay - which was deleted by somebody not understanding the music criteria, and then placed back in it's article space. It too follows the same criteria that N4 has, yet @Domdeparis: sees no problem with it and even contributed an edit to it! This is too much...

This is not about me fighting for the page, it is not personal; rather, it's about a fair and reasonable process - where only people who thoroughly understand the topic(s) are involved. Bobbybobbie (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply put, if the sources provided don't amount to coverage above the standard expected by GNG, the subject of the article isn't notable. To head off any possible bludgeoning, I can honestly claim to be my own person, not canvassed by anyone and simply having noticed an abnormally- (and absurdly-, by now) long AfD in the log. I claim no specific knowledge or lack thereof in relation to the subject beyond that of a semi-educated layperson, which I'm pretty sure is what the average user of this website is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thank you for your response, @BigHaz:. What is your take on the article in relation to WP:MUSIC? This is where confusion sets in. I have followed the guide for other work, and it was deemed sufficient; however, in this case - it is not. Bobbybobbie (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking specifically at anything other than WP:GNG, frankly. That's the "operating manual" for me. Neither am I looking to continue or buy into the war you've been waging with other users regarding this article and their ability or lack thereof to assess its notability. Since you've asked, though, I'll give you a very quick answer and leave the matter at that. MUSIC, ORG or any other guideline regarding topic-specific notability is precisely that - a guideline regarding topic-specific notability. A subject fulfilling enough of the criteria there is highly likely to have generated enough coverage to pass GNG. If they haven't, for some reason, generated that coverage, then they don't magically get an article simply because they tick NMUSIC's boxes. Likewise, they may have generated that coverage without ticking those boxes, in which case they're still eligible for an article. A band I saw on the weekend fits that last example perfectly, before you ask if that ever happens. Looking at this article, it's been demonstrated to my satisfaction that this particular team of producers haven't got the coverage required. Therefore, unless there's more coverage out there, they aren't notable within the definition of the term used here. I appreciate that that's annoying and disheartening to read that in relation to an article you've clearly worked on for some time, but speaking from years of experience I can say it does happen to just about everyone at least once. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not disheartening at all - I do not take this personal. If admins/editors were able to clearly and specifically point to the correct criteria, it would be an easy process. I have been dealing with people unfamiliar with the topic of music and this is resulted in the lengthy discussion/debate. As soon as people start mentioning WP:NORG in regards to producers - it's a red flag on their comprehension of the topic. As I mentioned earlier, I have had an article approved and have seen several others approved on the same grounds. It is rather confusing. Bobbybobbie (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to WP:GNG:
"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
I have supplied the Noisey/Vice interview which is non-trivial coverage in addition to other multiple sources crediting their works (as per WP:MUSIC). Does not fail WP:GNG Bobbybobbie (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since apparently the saga hasn't ended yet, some responses. Firstly, I refer you to the first (bolded) sentence of the GNG. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Let's apply this to the source you mention. Is it "significant coverage"? There is some debate on this point earlier in this discussion (yes, I read everything before I commented, apparently I had nothing better to do at the time), but I'll take it as read that if you're going to interview someone who is a member of a group about what he and the group does/do, you're generating "significant coverage". "Reliable source"? Not being overly well-up on Dutch music journalism, I can't confirm in either direction, but let's assume for the sake of things that this is a reliable source. It certainly gives that outward impression. "Independent of the subject"? Ah, here's a problem. An interview - certainly one like this - is only marginally above a press release, in that Mr van Workum is doing all of the talking. That's not independent. Additionally, we should note that the word used throughout the GNG is "sources" in the plural. Even were this interview to be a different kind of music journalism, it still only amounts to the one source. You're right that there's "no fixed number of sources required", but with wording like that, I'd say we're on the hook for at least two, and two secondary sources for preference, rather than the primary one here. The fact that the other sources indicate that the producers have produced the given productions doesn't get around the fact that the article still needs notability not to be deleted. In the interests of having the article kept, may I respectfully suggest that the energies you're putting into flogging the same dead horse you did with other editors be expended in finding these additional sources? That's abundantly more likely to achieve the outcome you so clearly desire. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to familiarize yourself with WP:IV before saying such things. The entire introduction is given by the interviewer (secondary source), and the remainder by the interviewee (primary source). By the way, the article is from Vice Media. Bobbybobbie (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clear definition. You can say that WP:GNG is all that matters, but then why does WP:MUSIC under "others" have exceptions for this topic? If this was clear then there would be no further discussion. Nobody here has been able to give a valid answer. It seems as though decisions on here are seasonal. I am not seeing any consistency. Bobbybobbie (talk) 07:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for assuming that I don't know what I'm talking about. If you insist on continuing to flog the horse, though, let me point out that per IV, as you've rightly stated, the information given by the interviewee is a primary source. You may have missed it earlier, but for a subject to be notable, it needs coverage in secondary sources. Even if we take the interviewer's words as the equivalent of one entire secondary source, I'm not seeing the second or subsequent one the policy requires. The "exceptions under 'others'" you're talking about begins with the wording "Composers and performers outside mass media traditions may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria". Last I checked, current pop music isn't "outside mass media traditions", so don't go insulting everyone's intelligence by clutching at that straw. Even were current pop music somehow mysteriously covered by this exception, you're still missing the point: if a composer or performer fits one of those criteria, there's highly likely to be the sources that GNG requires. In other words, it's not enough to wave your hands in the general vicinity of the article and say "Ah, but they've done X, Y and Z. Therefore, they're notable." You need to actually prove that with sources.

As for your claim that there's "no clear definition", "[no] consistency" and "decisions...are seasonal", that's just simply not true. There is absolutely a clear definition - just not one you like the outcome of. Consistency is what Wikipedia aims for, but I don't think anyone could say hand-on-heart that every single article currently existing should do so and in the format it currently exists in. That's why people can edit the articles and nominate those that they don't believe should be here for deletion, so that others can also review that and agree or disagree. If you see an article you feel needs editing, edit the darn thing. If you feel the subject of the article isn't notable, stick it on AfD and there'll be others coming along to discuss that. Again, I know it sucks to have people say "You know this article you've spent time writing? Yeah, it should be deleted". You're saying you're not taking it personally, but the fact that you're constantly making the same refuted arguments over and over again demonstrates that you're less interested in either trying to improve the article and/or build an encyclopedia than you are in trying to wage some kind of unarmed combat and irritate people. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does only pop have anything to do with mass media? It can refer to behind the scenes personal, such as producers, writers, etc. The artists/bands are usually subject to the public. Bobbybobbie (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Consistency is what Wikipedia aims for, but I don't think anyone could say hand-on-heart that every single article currently existing should do so and in the format it currently exists in." Wh... what?! Bobbybobbie (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're not being wilfully obtuse, consider, among other things, this essay, the forum in which we currently find ourselves, the fact that you can edit articles and the fact that anyone can create articles. Are they the kinds of things you would expect to find in a "finished product", because I sure as hell wouldn't. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is the craziest thing I have seen on Wikipedia - thus far... Bobbybobbie (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So why are there new articles being created, existing articles being edited and other existing articles being deleted 24 hours of the day, 7 days of the week? Does that not mean that Wikipedia is something other than the finished product? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BigHaz:...exhausting isn't it? Domdeparis (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly, yes. I've run up against this sort of chicanery before, though, so I came prepared. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobbybobbie: there's something that I am very curious about, if you don't like what goes on here in Wikipedialand and everyone seems to be incapable of understanding your reasoning why stay? Why on earth do you not just walk away and do something else maybe create a blog about music where you can write whatever you like and distribute your wisdom without being hampered by the unbelievers. Domdeparis (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: If I create an article for the "Cash me outside" girl's music career, will you all back it up? It certainly passes WP:GNG.

It's not about my opinion, it's about facts. It was not me, but others - who credited them and presented them with platinum and gold certifications - which deems them notable for their work(s). This has all been outlined in WP:MUSIC. Wikipedia needs some work in this area, and I am happy to contribute to it.

When I am on an article about music and other editors keep referring to WP:NORG over WP:MUSIC, then go on to say outlandish things - like, "Consistency is what Wikipedia aims for, but I don't think anyone could say hand-on-heart that every single article currently existing should do so and in the format it currently exists in." Yes... there certainly is a lot to discuss... Bobbybobbie (talk) Bobbybobbie (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that Wikipedia is a community where we strive for consensus of opinion and the NMUSIC criteria were first created in 2005 they have been modified over a thousand times and no-one has deemed fit to add producers in the list of others. I saw that you started a section on this subject on the NMUSIC talk page and the person who replied said exactly the same thing as here. Even if you succeeded in getting the word producers added ALL articles have to meet GNG. There are criteria for singers and songwriters etc that point towards notability but this does not guarantee notability. A songwriter that was credited for a platinum selling record is presumed notable (this avoids speedy delete or PRODDING) but the sources have to prove his notability and not just prove that he was credited with a platinum record. If no-one wrote about this songwriter and no in-depth secondary sourceS (plural) can be found he doesn't have the necessary notability to warrant a WP page and that article could be challenged in an Afd nomination. You have an interview with Freek v w. Who is one of the members of N4 (notability is NOT inherited so the source 'could' be considered as helping to point to HIS notability and not N4's). You could maybe build on this and create an article about this person but you would need more sources to show notability. Domdeparis (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we need to work on the entire subject. I said this in the start and you were up in arms about the thought of changing the wording of any Wikipedia guidelines. The person I was talking to couldn't give a definitive answer and mentioned that others are welcome to contribute. I don't entirely agree with his definition of notability (Re: New sounds), but this is where we contribute as a community.

As per your not inherited argument, the article clearly names N4 for his work(s) (so do the credits).

Well, it meets WP:GNG. It says "no fixed number" and "generally" more than one source. It all depends on the depth of the information provided on the subject. It doesn't have to be an entire article based on the topic. On this topic, I have provided a non-trivial source and several reliable sources backing up the group's achievements - as per WP:MUSIC. Bobbybobbie (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it's like talking to a brick wall... I apologise in advance as it is not normally the done thing but I'm going to have to shout now... THE SOURCES YOU ADDED DO NOT PROVIDE IN-DEPTH COVER OF THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE DIRECTLY SO DO NOT HELP PROVE ITS NOTABILITY AS PER WP:GNG. Domdeparis (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read the guidelines on the definition of "significant coverage". This is an article with room for improvement. There is no need to be so hasty to delete it, when it obviously has merit. Bobbybobbie (talk) 10:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an article with room for improvement, why not do that? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - N4 does appear to meet criteria in Wikipedia:NMUSIC. The guideline says "Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:" So we now know the company may be notable. Now we need to determine if it is notable. To do that we look at the sources provided and available. I didn't find any sources better than what has already been provided in the article. The sources in the article do not show significant coverage by independent reliable sources. This tells me they do not meet our notability guidelines. ~ GB fan 11:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, this is a much better explanation than what the others gave. Bobbybobbie (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically same conclusions as GB and above. Couldn't find externals on my own, and the inline citations aren't exaclty to par. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--We are discussing the topic of music notability here. Hopefully, there will be some improvements to the current guidelines. This has been a lengthy, but useful AFD. Bobbybobbie (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment hi @Bobbybobbie: thanks for adding the extra sources to the article, I have checked them out and unfortunately they don't seem to improve the notability of the subject as none of them mention N4. I would invite the other participants to do the same if they so wish. If you can find some that do please don't hesitate to let us know here so that the different participants can check them out and see if that changes their opinion. Domdeparis (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am still adding further resources to the article. I will get some more in-depth credits on there soon. Bobbybobbie (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi just looked at the 3 sources added which prove that Freek van workum was a writer on the songs along with Nick Luscombe and 3 other writers that are not part of N4 but this still isn't in-depth coverage and the sources still mention N4 as producers. You may have enough sources to start an article on Freek van workum now but you will need some more in-depth coverage I think too but it's a close pass for him. Unfortunately none of the sources talk directly in-depth about N4 so they do not really help this Afd. Happy hunting. Domdeparis (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rehashing the same arguments

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You seem to be on a witch-hunt (of sorts). This article passes WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. This is why I created it - in the first place.

This AFD was filed on false grounds, as at the beginning of WP:N (the article W:GNG is within), it states, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right;" (The box has WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO inside of it.)

Where on Wikipedia does it state that WP:GNG applies to WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO? It may surprise you, but this is what it clearly says. Please pay attention to detail. Bobbybobbie (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject appears to depend on the notability of the artists it produces but there is almost a total disregard for significant independent sources. With that being said, I could not find any better sources than what is already available in the article to pass notability guidelines.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion-- Y'all! You're off topic. Again.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment I would actually like to thank @Domdeparis: for nominating this page as it has created a greater awareness to the topic of record producer. Let's work together to improve Wikipedia. Bobbybobbie (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wish I could say the same thing but you have exhausted us all by saying the same thing over and over again and refusing to accept the consensus. If you wanted to create greater awareness for producers you should have stayed on the NMUSIC talk page rather than wasting everyone's time here. An admin had to take this to ANI to try and stop your disruptive editing and even that didn't work...so no thanks will be coming your way from me. Domdeparis (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim, so I get in trouble for repeating myself and I also get in trouble for making (new) comments - thanking the opposing party (even though I don't agree)? This is ridiculous. (corruption?)Bobbybobbie (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobbybobbie: You're not "getting in trouble" so don't be dramatic. Dlohcierekim merely collapsed some off-topic discussion that interferes with the ability of an evaluating admin to actually evaluate the consensus of the discussion about N4. Your comment, however, betrays the issue that has permeated every discussion that you have been involved in: That you think there are "opposing parties" in the first place. Please, please, read WP:Wikipedia is not about winning and the other essays and guidelines referenced there. Multiple editors (including, obviously, myself) have cautioned you here and in other places about the way you apparently feel compelled to respond to every comment and this is no different. You have been already warned that this behavior will get you blocked or banned. Let me take a different tack: Do you think that this style of interaction you are adopting is working? Wikipedia is an enormous project with over 125,000 active editors. The only way that works is through consensus. It you decide "consensus is wrong" then you will not have an enjoyable or productive time here. I urge you, one anonymous Internet user to another, to carefully consider if tilting at this particular windmill has accomplished anything useful. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Y'ALL! Could we please carry on the off-topic conversations at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/N4 (record producers)? Thanks.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP for lack of in depth coverage. I agree that record producers are a hard row to hoe, but maybe that is appropriate. --Bejnar (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Trout the editors who have made this the longest AfD I have ever seen. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC) ___ DoneDlohcierekim (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think there should be more about who they are as people and not merely what they've done as a career. It reads like a résumé, to the point that you could easily tag it as such. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ALLOFTHEABOVE. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Star World (India)

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE states:

... an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable.

These programme lists are not historically significant. If they were lists of original programming, then this may be acceptable, but these are largely imported shows and are unencyclopedic. Rob Sinden (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an ecyclopaedia, NOT a timetable. As OP mentioned, a list of historically significant programs/events/miestones is acceptable as it is encyclopaedic. Another point is, the article has all the three "tenses" former, current, and upcoming programming; so obviosly the article will keep on gaining unencyclopaedic content. Delete. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTTVGUIDE and mostly original research. Ajf773 (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but mainly on the grounds we have seventeen sources for over 300 entries. We have these lists, but sourcing is required. Nate • (chatter) 20:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Dee

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

I declined the A7 tagging since the article contains some marginal claims of significance, such as appearing in two episodes of Yo Momma, being a significant competitor in a notable radio station's contest and starring in a web series produced by a notable TV network. Erring on the side of caution, I decided to bring it here instead.

However, I cannot find any reliable sources for either the real name or the stage name to back up any of those claims mentioned. As such, he fails WP:NBIO, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Regards So Why 07:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. So Why 07:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. So Why 07:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. So Why 07:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. So Why 07:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. So Why 07:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete tagged as A7, but I appreciate the abundance of caution. None of the claims made demonstrate why the subject should be in an encyclopedia, and a clear fail of all of our inclusion criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Economic process of cap and trade

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

A merger discussion for this established a consensus to merge to Emissions trading, but reviewing the article it seems to be entirely written as an essay - "let us suppose a situation" "For simplicity we will assume" - I'm not sure any of this content is suitable to merge as the entire article discusses a single hypothetical example and is not written in encyclopedic language. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing to be gained by merging this anywhere. bd2412 T 16:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avion Films

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

Ineligible for PROD. In 2007, was PROD'd as non notable, and de-PROD'd by an IP who disagreed.

In my estimation, this company doesn't pass WP:GNG. Two refs are from Boards Mag, a defunct trade magazine that didn't even publish for a full year. The "honors" from the Clio Awards are minor, Bronze-level mentions along with a number of others. (see here) IMHO they confer no notability.

A Google search shows most Google hits are for a Greek production company with the same name, but that company doesn't seem notable either. The GHits for both are mostly name-drops in release info for films/work they contributed to, but no in-depth coverage of either iteration of Avion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no reason to keep this entry. The company is defunct, and no reasons are apparent in the stub of an article as to why the company is notable. There aren't even any specifics about their work, except an unsourced claim that once they may have been noticed by the Clio Awards for something. Scriblerian1 (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garfish Restaurants

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

fails WP:CORP. the gnews hits are mainly about stories on how it employs foreign workers. the awards including from local newspaper hardly establish notability. LibStar (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of significant coverage, doesn't pass WP:CORP. Ajf773 (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The awards listed and mentioned elsewhere are not notable in themselves and I am seeing nothing to indicate more than a company going about its business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. article withdrawn by contributor DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Webberley

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

I wanted this to be properly discussed rather than sitting there forever with a notability tag. There's work to be done in terms of its tone, and the creator has declared that they have been paid to create this. None of that reflects on Webberley's notability one way or the other though. I didn't find that the sources or information added up to Webberley meeting WP:GNG or WP:BIO and a WP:BEFORE didn't convince me otherwise. Interested to see what others think. Boleyn (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The given references are not persuasive: the subject is mentioned as "a GP in Wales" in The Guardian article; the UK parliament Transgender Equality report does not list her as a witness or provider of written evidence so can serve as a reference to the thematic area but not her biography; an author page serves a functional purpose for the Huffington Post but does not in itself demonstrate encyclopaedic notability; nor do a conference listing or a Youtube link. Highbeam shows the subject has been quoted in various popular medicine stories in Mirror Group newspapers and her Youtube uploads show various TV appearances, but I don't think there is enough to demonstrate notability in her field or, at a stretch given the media quotes, WP:CELEBRITY. AllyD (talk) 09:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs proper formating, rewording, and evidence of notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG. obvious promotion. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Thank you, nom. --Lockley (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus : consulates are not inherently notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate-General of India, Houston

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable, consulates even less so. in the last AfD the keep arguments were unconvincing. all the article explains is with routine coverage is what a consulate normally does. LibStar (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in the sources provided shows a demonstration of notability. It's just a garden-variety consulate.PohranicniStraze (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage is run-of-the-mill, as indicated in the nomination. Once the building specifications and other trivia-type content are removed, there isn't anything that isn't already mentioned at List of diplomatic missions in Houston. None of the arguments provided in the previous discussion go beyond WP:ITSUSEFUL. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ETEBAC5

AfDs for this article:

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

Prior AfD closed due to 0 comments. Topic fails WP:GNG. No sources. Nothing. The last sentence ends in ... and seems unfinished. This is worse than a draft. Should have been speedied. Can we delete this, please? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article has been around for 12 years and shows no sign of being improved or acquiring any sources. As it stands, it appears to fail WP:GNG.PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree the article is worse than a draft. The topic is discussed in passing at Electronic Banking Internet Communication Standard which is more than sufficient. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the other two. This article is not notable, already discussed, and not only unhelpful to all those who come across it but also actively hurts Wikipedia. This is essentially a draft that somehow got published and never deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williambellwisdo (talk • contribs) 14:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Martin (author)

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

Self-promotional Primary sources and listings for his book do not add up to notability for this BLP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 08:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet NAUTHOR or GNG.Dlohcierekim (talk)
Note on closure: If major reviews are found for his Coal Wars book, might be worth redirecting there. Cursory search only showed Kirkus and PW reviews, which are weak for notability (they review everything). czar 06:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of schools in Selangor. (non-admin closure) f e minist 11:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SMK USJ 4

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

All article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Can be redirected to List of schools in Selangor. QianCheng_虔诚 15:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following related article also fails to the criteria above:

QianCheng_虔诚 15:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. QianCheng_虔诚 15:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. QianCheng_虔诚 15:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all three. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools in Selangor. The Wikipedia stand-alone articles requires reliable references and wide coverage to justify their notability. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment expanding on my delete vote: named in a way that suggests it's not notable, search results are mostly trivial [7] or about students [8]; WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES kerfuffle seems to imply this type of article is generally removed. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of schools in Selangor. I normally give pretty wide berth for secondary schools, and there may be something here later, but as they currently stand, they have issues beyond just being a one line stub: Smartkidz lists, information about being a scout troop, etc. Redirecting at this point would be best, and if someone can provide sources to demonstrate the likelihood of notability, they can recreate and build from the history of the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools in Selangor. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 18:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bass Rebels

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

Does not appear to be a notable music label; a search for coverage in reliable sources found only one promotional shoutout from a media partner. Other hits included false positives for an unrelated music event in Singapore, or for unremarkable music groups with the same name. The claims that its music has been used by the likes of BBC and Channel 4 are only sourced to the label's pages, and not by independent sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, completely unreferenced, and promotional. --Lockley (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not Notable MassiveYR ♠ 16:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hrach Sergeyevich Aghabekyan

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. His football team may be notable even though the league they play in is not recognised as being a Fully professional leagues and notability is not inherited. A search on the web turned up nothing very much to support notability. Domdeparis (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom that he fails GNG/BIO. Just a person doing a job in some obscure corner of the sport world. Not encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Football administrators are considered non-notable unless they can satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of GNG being met Spiderone 07:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shin Mi-na

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

Article on not-notable person has been previously CSD'ed and immediately recreated. Recommend delete and salt. Chetsford (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sources seem almost entirely in Korean, but the two linked in the article seem like reputable papers, and may have in-depth coverage. I think we could use an opinion from a Korean speaker. I do think there may be a celebrity-person with a similar name that may be generating extra hits, so approach this carefully. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 02:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RajKumar

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

Non-notable actor, writer and film producer. The sources provided whilst extensive are not about him also the article claims the film Romeo-N-Bullet was co-produced and written by RajKumar but this source published by boxofficeindia.com failed to support any claim. No indication of passing WP:NBIO and general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, can't find significant coverage online in WP:RS, and nothing to confirm the claims made. It's tricky, as there are a few Indian filmmakers by this name: see Rajkumar. Uncle Roy (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor appearances on TV and films. Romeo-N-Bullet was co-produced by his film but the film credits don't show him as the producer. No RS covers him significantly. Fails WP:GNG. --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. There is a clear consensus below that is is WP:TOOSOON for an article on this film that that is should be deleted until sufficient sources exist. This is qwithout prejudice against moving a copy to draft or userspace should someone ask for it or recreating it as an article once it has been released and the sources required by WP:NFILM exist and can be added. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Channa Mereya (film)

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

Non-notable film. Not-yet-released, no reliable sources. Deprodded by article creator. No evidence that the film meets WP:NFILM or general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. Maybe it will be notable when it is released. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete or send to draft coverage not sufficient in terms of depth or breadth to meet WP:GNG. Does not meet WP:NFILM. WP:TOOSOON.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winning Well

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

Imo a promotional article about a book for which the sources are entirely inadequate for the establishment of notability. TheLongTone (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mere PROMO. No SIGCOV found in searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reviews not from reliable sources. Best it's got is this blurb czar 18:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Red Shoes Unno

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Nikki♥311 22:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 22:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 22:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 22:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pro wrestling referee with no significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has been a ref in main events for njpw wcw nwa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.120.12 (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me what notability criteria that meets? I'm not seeing any. Papaursa (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've heard of this referee, which is more than I can say for most. Unfortunately that's not enough to satisfy WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete The keep argument is insufficient, as is the sourcing. Does not meet WP:N Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TripleA

AfDs for this article:

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

In the past, I have nominated many article for deletion on the grounds that they failed establish the notability of the topic by citing coverage in reliable secondary sources. None have been as bad as this article: It cites coverage from very unreliable sources! Namely, LisiSoft, modDB, Chip.eu (not to be confused by chip.de), soft-files.com, freewaregenius.com, the once-respected Download.com, and, worst of all, BrotherSoft! Codename Lisa (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait! This article was deleted TWICE before? I did not know that. Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4? —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. I'll second the speedy delite, having been deleted before. Having a look at the game, it seems legit, and seems to have some vague discussion, but the references are fairly soft, just the odd web site. No reviews for it I could see. Most of the references on the page are web sites, and half the links don't work! Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep. A game with a long history as successful freeware and open source game. that it was deleted before and keeps popping up is not a reason for deletion but a reason for keeping and that the deletions were maybe over-eager. Also, it would be great if instead of deletion a search for sources would be conducted. I found instantly a chip.de source. Shaddim (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC) Edit: an even stronger source, long print-media (with editorial overview) review[reply]
Weak Keep. While the number of unique downloads is not listed with the Sourceforge information, I feel that a game with over 1 million downloads certainly could fall into the noteworthy category. While I agree with the above comment that many of the sources "are soft", as the game is freeware I would tend to expect that. Ceronomus (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TripleA has a constant online community of gamers. It is among not so many games in List_of_open-source_video_games#Open_engine_and_free_content. All games in this category have Wikipedia articles, although not all of them are as popular as TripleA is. Regarding "None have been as bad as this article", I'm sorry to hear that, maybe the article can be improved, but I believe the game is certainly worth an article. It is fairly popular and is in the category of open source software. We should not assume that all open source software is non-notable just because they don't have a company to fund marketing and to improve visibility. The game is in the official Ubuntu repositories. I have added external links with reviews, including reviews from Cnet, Macworld, Chip, Ghacks. Even disregarding the current success, games/software should be considered notable also for historical value. TripleA is maintained right now (by a team of 3), and has been maintained (and played) for the past 15 years.Dl.goe (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article as written suffers from a large number of low-quality references, probably added to survive the AfD process. There is an 82-page dissertation cited as a reference; the rest appear to be references to promotional materials or game reviews. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is now mostly addressed in the latest version. Shaddim (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now there are even more low-quality references, which makes it worse IMO. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific ? I tried to filter out non-relevant ones and added only the one which help to understand the reach and impact the game achieved as Freeware game in the freeware game download scene, e.g. by adding for instance that is was included in digital distributor Desura Shaddim (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I first looked at the article, there were 18 references in the reflist. Now, there are 29, including a few (such as a Gentoo package) which are egregiously trivial in nature. Note WP:OVERCITE Power~enwiki (talk) 06:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the pure number of citations directly leads to overcitation: sometimes you have to back up facts more fine grained. And I disagree that the inclusion of Linux distribution's integration is "trivial". Quite the opposite, linux distributions have hight standards on content review and license review for their content, therefore their inclusion has weight. Shaddim (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with others that the game is certainly worth an article as a successful game with a long history, and that the difficulty with finding reliable sources to show notability is because it is freeware. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of the many references posted in desperate attempt to save the article only games4mac.de and linux-user.de look like reliable sources with broad enough coverage. I also found half page short article about this game in Linux Format magazine (issue 151, December 2011, p. 72). This is enough to prove notability of this game. For me, sole reason for delete is lack of Amiga port... Pavlor (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"lack of amiga port" ;) Shaddim (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested deletion request. Can be userfied, etc. on request. Sandstein 09:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happiness in children

AfDs for this article:

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

More essay than article, not sure how it can stand as a stand alone topic when it seems to be a synthesis of sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Going to suggest, in spirit of compromise, kicking this back to Draft. Give it some number of months for development there. Given to understand that Draft articles with no progress made automatically see deletion in some number of months. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I didn't even notice the first AFD, part of the problem of patrolling at work, get distracted. Regardless, I don't have a problem with it going to Draft, although I don't have high hope it will leave there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was hoping that the student would improve the work but didn't. Since the class is officially over, I unfortunately don't think that it will be likely that they will return, if they didn't for the first AfD. Unless someone here wants to take on this draft as a project, deletion looks to be somewhat more certain in this scenario. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist - still only three participants
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad A. Quayum

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mohammad Quayum

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

Questionable notability. Also, have doubt about the cited references. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 22:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep = assuming it's all true, he has quite the c.v., although I'd love to see better sourcing. Bearian (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was nominated for deletion in 2012, when the article title did not include a middle initial. The result of that discussion was keep. Since then, the list of potential references under external links has been beefed up, and now includes reviews of his work in The Statesman, Esquire, The Book Review, Humanities Diliman, and The Daily Star, to name a few. The external links should be mined for content and turned into references, but the nom's unspecified "doubt about the cited references" is not a sufficient argument for deletion. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Given that there have been no opposing comments post the notes on improvement, I've closed this as tending towards keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lika Ceni

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

Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Meatsgains (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.visit-montenegro.com/main-cities/ulcinj/ulcinj-history/

link to establish notibility. please do not delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Likacen (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find the subject mentioned in several Montenegro travel books as Lika Celi, but always as a passing reference to him and Ali Hodža, the Karamindžoja brothers, and sometimes Uluč Alija. I am not finding any detailed coverage of any of them, but if it is in Cyrilic, I doubt my search would turn it up. Agricolae (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this - [9] which is not a guidebook. Various Cyrillic, Turkish (part of the Ottoman empire back then), and other language sources - with use of possible alternative spellings is probably required for a serious search.Icewhiz (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added some information from a couple of the travel guides so there are at least some references to satisfy verifiability and notability. I don't really like relying on travel guides as historical sources, but given that other sources are likely not available in English and, in the spirit of expanding world coverage, I'm leaning toward keep in the hopes that future editors with more facility in the appropriate languages can expand this. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - following improvement. May be a mythical figure - but he is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment http://montenegrina.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Milenko-Ratkovic-Gusarska-epopeja.pdf; another link to establish notibility — Preceding unsigned comment added by Likacen (talk • contribs) 06:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Jeanne Sagan. There is a clear consensus that this content should not be a separate article. But there is not a clear consensus that a redirect is harmful so I am creating one on the basis that "redirects are cheap". The history is intact to enable a selective merge but there is no consensus for that below and if ity is desired it should be discussed on the relevant talk pages. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing Rubicon

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

The article, created by a SPA, completely fails to meet WP:BAND requirements. The sources in the article are mostly promotional items, not serious coverage. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, merge or redirect - Jeanne Sagan is a notable musician who was part of the band. Therefore, this article should either be kept, merged or redirected to Sagan. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. The article is not about Ms. Sagan, who barely meets WP:BIO standards, and her belated involvement is strictly in a supportive level as a back-up vocalist and bassist. Wefihe (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Wefihe:, if the article for Jeanne Sagan gets deleted, then that is a different story. However, that is the very best target that we have at this time, similar to the manner in which Lody Kong redirected to Zyon Cavalera. According to Crossing Rubicon and her own article, Sagan is as permanent as permanent is. Also, would you be so kind to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hopeless Fountain Kingdom World Tour? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wefihe: If you are implying that the involvement of Jeanne Sagan is minor, and therefore diminishes the relevance of the article, I would beg to differ. Jeanne Sagan is married to the singer of the band and is writing the music along with the other members of the band. To suggest that she is simply a bassist and backup singer quite trivializes her role in the band and is not quite accurate. Dan Hello Kitty McCarthy (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." Crossing Rubicon released their album with Pavement music which has done business since 1997 and has history with bands such as Soil and Crowbar, both of which are large bands which have pages here on Wikipedia. "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." Members of the band also run a promotional company which helps Connecticut bands get shows (Anarchy Promotions), and also partake in podcasts about the Connecticut metal scene featuring front-men of 4 different Connecticut bands (The League of Extraordinary Front-Men). This is in addition to the band featuring Jeanne Sagan, who was in All That Remains and temporarily toured with Acacia Strain. While I agree that it is not the most ideal candidate, I don't believe it is merit-less or without value to the Wiki. Dan Hello Kitty McCarthy (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that you just confirmed that this group does not meet WP:BAND requirements? And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't help me understand the Wiki any better and just feels as though you are rubbing it in my face when I'm just trying to keep a page I spent my time building. I tried to give some reasons in addition to what is already on the Wiki page. I don't understand the problem any better from your question. Your response feels more condescending than educational, I'm still learning. Dan Hello Kitty McCarthy (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the delay in responding. I would recommend reading WP:BAND (just click the link) to see what is required for a musical group to be considered notable by Wikipedia's standards. As one of the participants in this discussion noted, there are 12 different aspects where a band could be judged notable for inclusion on this website. Unfortunately, this group does not meet any of them. I can understand your frustration over the possibility of seeing this article erased, but at the same time its continued presence goes against what is spelled out in WP:BAND. And Adoil Descended (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails all 12 of the critieria in the WP:BAND rules. I have no objections redirecting this to the Jeanne Sagan article, but there is no reason for this obscure group to have its own encyclopedia article. Capt. Milokan (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the nominator. They're not a notable band. 95.215.44.97 (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mukul S. Anand. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 05:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dus (unfinished film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM plus significance cannot be found. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 12:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mukul S. Anand: Though this wasn't ever completed, let alone released, the film has received some coverage for being the director's last film. --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of unfinished or unreleased film articles on here with much less info than there is available for this film. Therefore I think this article should be kept as it was much talked about at the time of its production and is still remembered today for its soundtrack. Shakirfan (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kailash Surendranath. With no opposition to the redirect suggestion post two relistings, I am bent to close this Afd as per Skr's redirect suggestion. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Love You Hamesha

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

According to IMDB This film hasn't released. Since there is even no source to claim the release in 2001 as it was of 1999? Deletion needed. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the director Kailash Surendranath or maybe May Madham, the film it was a remake of. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro. There is no consensus to merge with multiple editors explicitly objecting. However, the objections to merging do not apply to redirecting, so that part of "merge and redirect" works. So Why 19:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Maria Chiara, Duchess of Capri

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

Fails WP:GNG, unsurprisingly, as the girl is 12. Apart from all the noble titles, this would have been a CSD-A7. Kleuske (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep She appears to be the current Duchess of Capri (?) and is the heir to the throne of the two sicilies, which would mean she would normally get a page. I'll see if I can find some references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a factiva search in Italian, there are about 13 references to her on there. I've put some in the article.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro - she is only 12, the second daughter7 of a claimant/pretender, and it's not yet clear how she's notable; none of her grandparents nor great-grandparents were reigning monarchs. Bearian (talk) 01:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to her parents' respective pages. She may or may not become notable at some point, but isn't notable in her own right at this time.PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro; I would also support a consensus deletion. She's not the heir, the family are disputed pretenders to a throne that hasn't existed since 1861, and she has no independent claim to notability due to being 12. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge: this is a child who, by herself, fails to establish independent notability. She may be related to someone a bit more notable, but not even her grandparents were reigning monarchs. --Re5x (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro. No claim to notability made. She's not even a real princess. Marvello123 (talk) 10:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No more independent notability than any 12 year old of an aristocratic family with pretensions to an no-linger-existent title. There's nothing worth merging. The content is mostly about her confirmation, a `non-encuyclopedic event. The principle here is NOT TABLOID. . DGG ( talk ) 09:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable member of an aristocratic family of minor significance. There's nothing to merge as the article is largely uncited original research. Whatever is cited is to unreliable sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yōhei Tadano

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

Non-notable voice actor, listed as a main supporting in Hime-sama Goyojin, and supporting character Shigemori Sumimura in Kekkaishi, that is not enough to meet WP:ENT. Everything else is minor/guest characters galore. No news articles in ANN. Seems to have some coverage in JA wikipedia, but not referenced very well. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There aren't any notable voice dubbing roles here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not from looking at ANN [10] which usually highlights starring or supporting roles. From that list you can see they're mainly episodics. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks like he has had some major voice dubbing roles, including Yoda in one of the star wars movies. Would definitely be a major role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs) 04:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources to back that up? I'm not talking just a cast announcement, but anything to show that this voice would meet WP:GNG? Also Yoda's role in Force Awakens was a cameo / bit part. [11] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist - still only 3 participants
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't comment on how significant his roles are, but we are lacking in sources, and a quick online search didn't turn up any significant coverage. The Japanese Wikipedia has quite a few Japanese language sources, but most of them appear to be just cast list announcements or WP: PRIMARY sources.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Channing

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

Only substantial claim to notability is his relationship with Ian Thorpe, but that isn't really enough to pass WP:GNG. Boneymau (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable as a model yet, or notable outside being Thorpe's boyfriend. Also, sources say he turned 27 in September, so the birth info is wrong anyway. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 02:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note attempted removal of deletion tag from article. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 05:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Ian Thorpe in lieu of deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Ian Thorpe as it's a plausible search term. Delete (after further thought) Not notable in his own right - searches turn up a number of hits but they're all references to his relationship with Thorpe, or else they're social media or run-of-the-mill directory entries and so on related to his work as a model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neiltonks (talk • contribs) 09:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Ian Thorpe. Not notable in own right but is a likely search term. Current material is sufficient encyclopedic so salvage. Aoziwe (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete oppose redirect of a BLP to another BLP. They are not married and have been dating for less than a year. In addition to the standard concerns I have over a BLP redirecting to a BLP: the subject of the redirect having no control over the actions that lead to the content of the article, the young relationship weighs strong. If they break up, having a redirect of a biography of a living person redirecting to his ex-boyfriend would be a major issue, and I wouldn't hold my breath on someone remembering to take this to RfD if the time comes. If they were married or in a long-term relationship, I'd be more open to redirecting, but at this time I can't get behind it, and he is already mentioned in the Thorpe briefly so there is nothing to merge. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point TonyBallioni. I'd not considered the privacy angle. He's just an ordinary guy who happens to be dating a celebrity so on reflection I agree with you - Delete. Neiltonks (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Neiltonks: you might want to strike your redirect !vote above to make it clear you support deleting. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per TonyBallioni. There's no case for notability apart from gossip columns on his personal relationships, which should not justify even a redirect here. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Linguist ^talk|contribs 11:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Team Essex Volleyball Club

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

Non-notable semi-professional sports team. Since volleyball in England is not organized at the same level of professionalism as, say, football or cricket, only the national team would be inherently notable. For other teams, evidence of actual significant coverage is needed, and Team Essex fails that criterion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Volleyball England is a professional National Governing Body which is the NGB for English Volleyball Clubs, many of which have their own Wikipedia pages, IBB London Polona, London Malory, Sheffield VC, to name but a few. It is not organised to the extent that Football agreed, but that is the national Sport, other sports will always be different and in my opinion its not fair to compare football to volleyball. If we looked at Italy, who won the Olympic silver medal in Rio2016, their Italian Volleyball Governing body is not organised like their football equivalent. However Volleyball England is attracting World Championship players, such as Ignazek, from Poland and is certainly a reputable governing body. Team Essex is notably for its Olympic Talent, two former players played in the London2012 Olympics, and form its junior to senior ranks, dozens of players compete for the English National Team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chestersearle (talk • contribs) 13:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not derived from the players on the team, or from the notability of the league in which the team plays, but rather is demonstrated by the presence of significant coverage in independent media, which is lacking. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ There are lots of examples of the what I suppose would deem significant coverage of Team Essex Volleyball Club in the media. Essex TV is an online television platform, which boasts both its online TV and an online magazine in the Essex region of England.https://www.essex-tv.co.uk/team-essex-volleyball-club-makes-history/, The Edge is a free online consumer based magazine based in Chelmsford, the city of the team's location,http://issuu.com/topdrawmedia.com/docs/edgemay2017?e=1369656/47971685, Volleyball England does its own season review which cites Team Essex's spot in Super 8s next season.https://www.volleyballengland.org/news/article/5534/the-thursday-review. Live coverage is also a regular event, with all our games being streamed by Essex Television. This link is for example the link to our shield final, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqg-4AVO2kg&t=4600s, streamed by Volleyball England, the Confederation European Volley member. I believe this page should be kept as while it may be argued that players and the league in which a team does not hold enough significance to deem it worthy of a volleyball article, these players of notoriety are Olympic athletes. Volleyball might not be recognised widely by some but IMHO I believe that teams in the top division of a country's sporting league should be deemed worthy enough of a Wikipedia article. Thanks. chestersearle^ChatMe!_{18:36, 24 May 2017 (BST)}

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 11:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roy C.J.

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

Fails WP:BIO, scant in-depth reliable sources. Weak referencing to such peripheral stuff as construction projects of his firm (WP:NOTINHERITED) and an honorary consulship. Sources for ordinary bio details like birthplace and date are missing. The best source is a weak #14 of 100 'notable people' Forbes list entry. Propose redirecting to the firm, Confident Group of Companies Bri (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete dearth of RS. Not sufficient coverage or impact for redirect/Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a glorified CV on an unremarkable businessperson. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aldrin O. Soriano

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

WP:BLP of a municipal councillor, in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors under WP:NPOL. This has significant overtones of résumé (as opposed to encyclopedic) presentation, and is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that cannot assist in demonstrating notability with very little evidence of reliable source coverage provided. As always, municipal councillors are not automatically accepted as notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist; they must be demonstrated and sourced as significantly more notable than the norm for their role for a Wikipedia article to become earned, but nothing here demonstrates or sources that. Bearcat (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Coverage insufficient to meet GNG. Looks like a promo piece for a NN politician.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, plus this may be a paid creation of article. Ptrck.dgzmn, who created this, must be notified of possible conflict of interest, that he must disclose on his user page by policy.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notified the user about possible COI, see here.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if the author is paid, they should edit professionally to conform to Wikipedia style. Boldface the topic in the lead sentence, and section headings in sentence case, per MOS:SECTION. Invalid use of DISPLAYTITLE, too. wbm1058 (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per the creator's request. Hut 8.5 20:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Philosophical Evolution of Wing Chun

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

Essay appears to be pure original research written in essay form that is unsalvageable. Basically the definition of WP:NOT. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is a essay. Seems unsalvageable. Most likely unsuitable for merging. Also Original Research. Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 04:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOR --Dps04 (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete For the above reasons.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original creator has removed all content and asked for deletion, so I'm putting up the db-author tag if no one else objects. Nate • (chatter) 20:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emagination Computer Camps}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Mena}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bedowyn}}<!--Relisted-->